Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 21 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Ground_Zero_Nueva_York6410.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Ground Zero in 2007, Manhattan, New York, USA --Poco a poco 11:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 15:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I mean - the quality definitely is not here. Why are we nominating pictures from 2007 in 2020? Please nominate only your best work. --Kallerna 19:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Your comment if not offensive, it's irritating. Is it forbidden to nom older images? This is one of my best works back then. Ever heard of Ground Zero and why it makes sense to have a document from that time? Poco a poco 21:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, the photo has blown highlights, it's very small, there is no detail, it's noisy, and tilted. I don't think nominating older images is forbidden, but this just feels like you need to nominate whatever to get 5 nominations every day. We already had decent digital cameras in 2007, it's just nonsense to say this was top notch quality back then. And if it was, you would have nominated it back then. --Kallerna 08:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Indeed I consider that improving (up to QI level or over it) images that are being used for a long time in Wikipedias an important task, that would be even a Wikiproject worth... Poco a poco 12:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I totally agree, but the middleground and background, including the crane, bother me too much for me to consider this a QI. It might possibly be a VI in the right scope, though (it would have to be compared to other photos in scope). -- Ikan Kekek 20:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 05:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Generally nothing wrong about nominating old pictures, but this one -- no good quality. --A.Savin 10:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree savin Seven Pandas 02:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 02:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Hotel_Dann_Monasterio,_Popayán_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hotel Dann Monasterio, Popayán, Colombia --Bgag 00:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 03:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed. --Kallerna 19:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support @Kallerna: Please look at the histogram, it's perfect --Moroder 05:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Oops, I meant the other picture by same author nominated same day. My mistake! --Kallerna 08:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice. -- Ikan Kekek 10:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Tagooty 13:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 02:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Bischberg_Michelsberger_Wald-20170501-RM-103002.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fields at the Michelsberg Forest near Bischberg --Ermell 07:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tesla Delacroix 20:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose underexposed, halo-effect. More could be expected for a subject like this. --Kallerna 20:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 05:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Pretty and painterly. I'd like to support, but Kallerna, where's the halo effect you speak of? -- Ikan Kekek 10:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 02:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Emmaüs_(Scherwiller).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Emmaüs in Scherwiller (Bas-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 07:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality --Michielverbeek 09:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose What is the composition here? 50 % road, lots of overexposed sky. Technically may be fine, but even with QIs we can expect something compositionwise. --Kallerna 20:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I modified the light tones and cut. Gzen92 07:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support OK. --A.Savin 15:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 02:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Stadtarchiv_Hof_20201027_DSC5266.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Local archive in Hof. --PantheraLeo1359531 15:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Moroder 04:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose underexposed. --Kallerna 20:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Brighter image --PantheraLeo1359531 14:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 20:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 02:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Museum_Bayrisches_Vogtland_20201027_DSC5254.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Museum bavarian Vogtland. --PantheraLeo1359531 14:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Moroder 04:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose underexposed. --Kallerna 20:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Brightened --PantheraLeo1359531 14:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 20:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Improved. --Augustgeyler 23:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 02:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Pfarramtskomplex_Hospitalkirche_Hof_20201027_DSC5252.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Parish office in Hof. --PantheraLeo1359531 14:46, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Moroder 04:28, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose underexposed. --Kallerna 20:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose With Kallerna:  Underexposed --Augustgeyler (talk) 12:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Brightened --PantheraLeo1359531 15:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Drab and dreary day, but good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 20:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Exposure improved now. --Augustgeyler 00:01, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 02:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Sunset_Beach,_Oahu,_Hawaii,_USA5.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Pūpūkea Sunset Beach, Oahu, Hawaii, USA --Poco a poco 13:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --C messier 18:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose It is a well composed, dramatic scene but not sharp enough for QI. --Augustgeyler 22:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it is and respect the artist's choice on how long to make the depth of field. -- Ikan Kekek 01:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lots of small problems: light, size, dust spots, soft. Also, why to nominate images which are clearly not your best work and 12 years old? --Kallerna 17:40, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp. --Tagooty 14:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 15:16, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Chapelle_Notre-Dame-des-Neiges_-_intérieur_(Sélestat).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Inside the Notre-Dame-des-Neiges chapel in Sélestat (Bas-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 07:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Baidax 15:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, too many overexposed areas with no detail, from the floor to the stalls. --C messier 18:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per messier.--Ermell 21:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough, IMO. The blown areas don't bother me except at close to full size, and we know what the benches look like, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek 06:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Ikan --Moroder 08:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blown highlights. --Kallerna 20:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others -- Spurzem 22:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I modified the light tones. Gzen92 08:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak support per Ikan -- IM3847 18:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose It is well composed. But the blown highlights in combination with the medium level of detail makes me deciding for not QI --Augustgeyler 12:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Agree with the comments about, too many areas overexposed, a very tricky shot and probably imposible to meet QI requirements with only one shot, you'd have needed at least 2 and a HDR merge --Poco a poco 14:22, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 02:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)