Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 06 2021

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Gent,_hoekhuis_Hippoliet_Lippensplein_25_(oeg19000)_op_kruispunt_Vlaanderenstraat-Brabantdam_IMG_0628_2021-08-15_09.51.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ghent-Belgium, monumental house at Hippoliet Lippensplein 25 on the crossroad Vlaanderenstraat-Brabantdam --Michielverbeek 05:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The shadow area is large and the image quality is not sharp. --MaedaAkihiko 07:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 08:02, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
     Comment Please realize the streets are narrow in this part of Ghent --Michielverbeek 06:59, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too unsharp, distracting shadow -- Alvesgaspar 23:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Vila_Viçosa_September_2021-5.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Detail of the Ducal Palace of Vila Viçosa (Portugal) showing the inclined facade. -- Alvesgaspar 14:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry! The photo is not sharp enough, is leaning and has some dust spots. --Steindy 18:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
    •  Comment A minor tilt was corrected and a dust spot removed. But, of course, the second floor is leaning. The purpose of the photo is to show it -- Alvesgaspar 20:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
      •  Comment I read the description. The sloping facade is evidently on the first floor. But the slope on the second floor doesn't fit. The image sharpness is now reasonably okay, but the chimney seems to be tilted (double contours). I also don't know which dust spots you have corrected. I also wrote about "some dust spots" and I still see at least seven(!) dust spots. --Steindy 17:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Vieja_colorada_(Sparisoma_cretense),_Monte_da_Guia,_isla_de_Fayal,_Azores,_Portugal,_2020-07-26,_DD_43.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mediterranean parrotfish (Sparisoma cretense), Monte da Guia, Faial Island, Azores, Portugal --Poco a poco 20:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Bad point of view, needs tighter crop, noisy, rather unsharp. --Kallerna 06:30, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
The parrotfish looks fine to me, whether the background is sharp or not is secondary IMHO --Poco a poco 13:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment But it seems that the fish is also blurred and out of focus. --Hillopo2018 08:14, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Kallerna & Hillopo2018 -- Alvesgaspar 23:16, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Areosa_fortress_07.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Areosa fortress in Viana do Castelo, Portugal. --Tournasol7 04:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Sorry! Not sharp enough. --Steindy 19:27, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
     Support I disagree Nice composition good light, sharp enough --Moroder 17:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
     Oppose Not sharp enough indeed.--Jebulon 10:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Focus probably not perfect, but sharp enough to be printable to A4 or larger size in good quality. --Smial 10:42, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. --Hillopo2018 08:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Wall is not sharp enough, especially on the right side --Augustgeyler 21:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not sharp enough. --Milseburg 10:17, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Hamburg_Moorburg_Kirche_St._Maria-Magdalena_Innenraum_05.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Interior of the church in Hamburg-Moorburg, altar --Dirtsc 16:57, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Sorry! Outblown windows. --Steindy 19:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
     Comment The windows at the far right are outblown, no doubt. I'd like to see more opinions, if this is enough to reject QI. If this would be consensus, I can consider this with future nominations. Greetings --Dirtsc 10:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable for me. We already have promoted far much outblown pictures IMO. Only few details affected.--Jebulon 10:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support This window is neither image-important nor large. It also does not show unnatural colors. The main motif is shown in extraordinary detail, so I consider the insignificant flaw to be bearable. I would like to add that I am actually quite picky about eroded image details, especially when there is color distortion or when surface textures are lost from the main subject (typically with overexposed blue sky areas or sunlit house walls). --Smial 10:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
  •  Support per others. Good quality, overall. -- Ikan Kekek 20:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Smial. --Aristeas 17:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)