Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 01 2021

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Consensual review[edit]

File:Vila_Viçosa_September_2021-16.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Royal Palace of Vila Viçosa (cylindrical panorama) -- Alvesgaspar 23:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Joydeep 18:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Could be a QI only in a twisted way, as an example of what a panorama should not be... -- Alvesgaspar 10:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In a strange way "with" Alvesgaspar. --Augustgeyler 10:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 08:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

File:ZDF-Hochhaus_20211105_HOF07827cens.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination ZDF tower in Mainz-Lerchenberg, Germany. --PantheraLeo1359531 13:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support I would say, good quality. Although, i'm not a fan of the quite extreme perspective (correction) as it seems to affect the look of the building quite much. Would be better if it can be photographed a little further away. --Ximonic 14:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is a good and important point, but the problem is that further away, there are trees which would be distracting. See here :) ~~~~
  •  Oppose Extreme distortion -- Alvesgaspar 20:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment For glass facades or other modern architecture, I can accept the extreme perspective correction. However, the image result should be scaled down so far that a reasonably homogeneous sharpness results. The presented image is clearly blurrier in the upper third than in the lower third, which is just a natural result of pixel interpolation. --Smial 11:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Thanks, scaled down :) --PantheraLeo1359531 15:41, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMO not possible to get a good perspective --Michielverbeek 06:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I believe this works with modern architecture. -- Smial 17:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Commonists 18:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Perspective and crop are very good here ! --Sebring12Hrs 22:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose with Michielverbeek. --Augustgeyler 14:35, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry, but per Michielverbeek --Sandro Halank 22:32, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Why to upload 5 different versions? Spending of data? --Kallerna 16:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 Comment No. --PantheraLeo1359531 14:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 20:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Sargo_común_(Diplodus_sargus),_Parque_natural_de_la_Arrábida,_Portugal,_2020-07-23,_DD_50.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Sargo (Diplodus sargus), Arrábida National Park, Portugal --Poco a poco 12:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality.--Horst J. Meuter 12:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, colors and light look wrong, poor detail -- Alvesgaspar 06:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment New version with retouched WB Poco a poco 20:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think it's sharp enough, but I'd like to know, is the purple on its back true to life? -- Ikan Kekek 23:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 08:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)