Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 01 2021

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Confluence_of_Katun_and_Chuya_rivers.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Confluence of Katun and Chuya rivers at Altay Mountains, Russia --KpokeJlJla 18:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Nice picture! Somehow it lacks sharpness in the details. But the shadow on the upper third makes it quite interesting! --Etaped 19:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I think this is a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 05:25, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your feedback! Increased clarity a little bit. --KpokeJlJla 06:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support--Kritzolina 14:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 02:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Frozen_trees_near_Chike-Taman_Pass.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Frozen trees near Chike-Taman Pass, Altay Mountains, Russia --KpokeJlJla 18:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • In my opinion it lacks sharpness in the details. Please object, if I'm mistaken. --Etaped 19:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your feedback! I tried to fix it, could you please check? --KpokeJlJla 06:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. --Junior Jumper 11:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support--Kritzolina 14:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Fairly mild posterization in the sky but otherwise solidly good. -- Ikan Kekek 21:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 02:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Επισκοπή_Ηρακλείου_0297.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Airview of Episkopi, Crete. --C messier 19:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Good overall quality, but I'm not sure about the sharpness. Please discuss. --Etaped 19:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • OK, so let’s move this to consensual review … --Aristeas 10:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support – a bit soft, but IMHO still OK (have seen much worse things in drone photos), and colours etc. are fine. --Aristeas 10:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Solid, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 05:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. --Smial 15:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ok, thanks for your opinions! --Etaped 16:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Pierre André Leclercq 16:36, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 02:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Autonomes_E-Shuttle_in_Hofer_Altstadt_20201126_DSC6581.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination An autonomous E-shuttle in the old town of Hof. --PantheraLeo1359531 15:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree bc the perspective is somewhat off. House edges seem straigt, but the subjects seems to be leaning to the right. Maybe its the form of the subject itself --Etaped 19:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I could easily be missing something, but it looks to me like we're looking at an actual slope down to the left, and the people on the right look straight. -- Ikan Kekek 18:09, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --GRDN711 16:19, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Pierre André Leclercq 16:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 02:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Autonomes_E-Shuttle_in_Hofer_Altstadt_20201126_DSC6575.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination An autonomous E-shuttle in the old town of Hof. --PantheraLeo1359531 15:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:02, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IG is good! But I disagree, I think perspective/composition could be better. The bench in fg distracts a bit. --Etaped 19:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable. I try to make some allowances for taste, so the bench is nowhere near a deal-breaker for me, and I'm unconvinced it's even bad. -- Ikan Kekek 18:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support If depth of field were a problem, I would agree that a straight-on shot would be better, but it is IMO sharp enough for QI. Rhododendrites 19:47, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment The image would have a stronger focus on the E-Bus if it was cropped tighter (same ratio) to remove the bench. --GRDN711 16:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Pierre André Leclercq 16:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 02:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Bamberg_klein_Venedig-20070825-RM-194758.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fisherman houses little Venice in Bamberg during the Sandkerwa 2007 --Ermell 08:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Nice motif and perspective, but unfortunatly noise reduction introduces fragments and structures, e.g. in the clouds. --Etaped 19:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
    I disagree. --Ermell 22:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I must agree Etaped. Lots of artifacts, not only in the clouds. The image is overall overprocessed --Smial 13:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Artefacts in the sky.--Peulle 12:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree with the others, but I feel like the stuff in the sky should be fixable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk)
    •  Comment The criticism is entirely justified. Unfortunately, the technical standard in 2007 was not as far as it is today. I will revise the image again at a later date. Thanks for all the reviews.--Ermell 07:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --C messier 13:31, 31 January 2021 (UTC)