Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 17 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Statue_of_a_frog_in_Parque_Arqueológico_de_San_Agustín_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Statue of a frog in San Agustín Archaeological Park, Colombia --Bgag 00:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry but I think that DOF is to shallow, I would like more things to be in focus --Podzemnik 03:58, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. The "face" is sharp and DOF for this part sufficient --Smial 11:35, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per Smial. --Aristeas 08:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Podzemnik --Michielverbeek 06:33, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 04:13, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 22:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 11:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Digester,_Rendsburg_(P1100728).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Anaerobic digestion tower in Rendsburg --MB-one 20:02, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Please correct the vertical lines --Moroder 06:23, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. --Moroder 09:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done new version uploaded --MB-one 12:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I’ve been waiting for seven days --Moroder 15:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality to me. -- Ikan Kekek 03:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
    Moroder, did you mean to oppose? If not, let's promote the photo. -- Ikan Kekek 03:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Comment As I said, I waited for seven days for the perspective correction --Moroder 05:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Right, but unfortunately, the status was set to "Discuss". No terrible harm done, though. -- Ikan Kekek 01:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Neutral The light comes from the wrong side. Fot me it would not be a QI. -- Spurzem 10:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Composition is good. It might be QI. But I tend to say it is not. I am with Spurzem about the light. Additionally the level of detail is at minimum and some highlights are burned. --Augustgeyler 03:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  • weak  Support. Sharpness, exposure, lighting, contrast range, all not quite perfect, but in my opinion just within the limits. --Smial 09:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose main subject is in too dark of shadow. Seven Pandas 18:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Main subject in shadow. --Kallerna 20:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me.--Ermell 10:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 11:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)