Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 25 2023

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:L'allée_piétonne_du_cours_Fauriel_en_face_Manufrance.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Cours Fauriel pedestrian way at en:Saint-Étienne, France. --Touam 17:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
    Image rotated clockwise --Nino Verde 08:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
    Hi, thank you for your review, I've upload a new version. Is that ok like that ? --Touam 05:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Nino Verde 08:11, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Not i focus. --Kirill Borisenko 17:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No good compositon for me and unfortunate lighting -- Spurzem 13:05, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp, poor lighting --Jakubhal 17:44, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --C messier 19:23, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Benz_Vision_EQXX,_IAA_Open_Space_2023,_Munich_(P1120189).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mercedes-Benz Vision EQXX at IAA Open Space 2023, Munich --MB-one 12:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality. --Liridon 13:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Bad composition. People around are superfluous. --Kirill Borisenko 20:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Kirill. -- Ikan Kekek 07:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Smial 09:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad lighting, bad surroundings, too tight crop -- Spurzem 13:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:54, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Cargo_tricycle,_IAA_Summit_2023,_Munich_(P1110737).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Dumper tricycle at IAA Summit 2023 in Munich, Germany --MB-one 07:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --1municipio 08:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the man in the background --Charlesjsharp 08:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, unfortunately he's very distracting in this context. -- Ikan Kekek 07:10, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Furthermore the lighting is not the best. -- Spurzem 08:08, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Underexposed and disturbing person. --F. Riedelio 07:58, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --C messier 19:21, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Kalyazin_Bell_tower_of_St._Nicholas_Cathedral_2023-07-21_7077.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Kalyazin Bell tower of St. Nicholas Cathedral --Mike1979 Russia 07:09, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --1municipio 08:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Bad light conditions, main subject restored from shadows, agressively noise reducted which cause details loss and aome aquarelle effect. --Nino Verde 09:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Dramatic and beautiful to me, irrespective of the techniques used. -- Ikan Kekek 07:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfavorable lighting, probably an early morning shot would have been better. --Smial 11:36, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry: The object is underexposed. --F. Riedelio 07:54, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --C messier 19:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

File:St_Paul's_Cathedral_West_Facade_Night_2020.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination West facade of St. Paul's Cathedral at nightploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments 2023. --Julian Herzog 19:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Grunpfnul 07:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose It may be nice and artistic, but given the clearly distorted perspective and also lots of dustspots, I don't see how it's a quality image. --A.Savin 11:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per A.Savin --Milseburg 14:00, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support The sky looks pretty clean to me, the perspective is obviously intentional, and I think we should respect the artistic intention of the photographer. -- Ikan Kekek 18:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I fixed the dust spots. The perspective looks unnatural if corrected in my opinion, from that short distance, but completely understand differing opinions on that. --Julian Herzog 07:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Verticals to be straightened, see Image guidelines --Palauenc05 07:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support The composition is very interesting and would be destroyed by modification of verticals. --KaiBorgeest 22:14, 19 September 2023 (UTC)--
  •  Support Per Ikan --Jakubhal 15:35, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Given the ultra wide nature of the photo, IMHO converging verticals are OK. --C messier 16:25, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is nice and artistic, but not suitable for QI. QI has different requirements. --Nino Verde (talk) 14:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 19:22, 24 September 2023 (UTC)