Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 14 2024

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Grave_of_Iulia_Hașdeu_in_the_Bellu_Cemetery_in_Bucharest,_Romania_(07).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Grave of Iulia Hașdeu in the Bellu Cemetery in Bucharest, Romania --Neoclassicism Enthusiast 17:48, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --MB-one 13:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
    Please fix the verticals. --XRay 12:56, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Which of the many verticals offered in the picture should it be? The building on the left at the edge is almost perfectly vertical. The fence and the fence posts and the little gate offer a rich selection of verticals, some tilted to the left, some to the right. The same applies to the stone borders and walls. --Smial 13:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support You're right. The verticals of the fence in the background are leaning in, but it may be correct. --XRay 15:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 21:03, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Centro_de_interpretación_románico,_Luesia,_Zaragoza,_España,_2023-01-04,_DD_61.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Reredos of Our Lady of the Rosary, Romanesque interpretation centre, Luesia, Zaragoza, Spain --Poco a poco 07:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 08:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As I see it, the niche is very distorted. Please discuss whether this is a quality image. -- Spurzem 19:51, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Not ideal after editing, but better than the first version reviewed here. -- Spurzem 17:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The niche is not distorted, it IS NOT rectangular. And one more thing, dear Spurzem, it would look less suspect if you would promote one of my pictures. Your last 10 reviews were declines or CRs after a supporting votes. Therefore I consider your votes biased Poco a poco 09:37, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose This could be a very good image, but the distortion must be fixed and the contrast should be increased (it uses only 77 % of the available brightness range). --Plozessor 05:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment If the niche is not rectangular then I take back the comment about it, but still this picture is too dark, this can easily be fixed though. --Plozessor 12:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
@Poco a poco: It is of course possible that the niche was adapted to the crooked retablo of the altar. But I don't think so. – Otherwise: Why am I biased when I see clear defects in a photo? Can pictures only be praised here? Best regards -- Spurzem 19:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
If you consider your behaviour civic, who wonders that you have one conflict after the other --Poco a poco 20:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment ✓ New version --Poco a poco 20:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now! --Plozessor 05:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support good rework. --Smial 15:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 21:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

File:201_Dome_Mosque_11.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Aerial photographs of 201 Dome Mosque, Tangail District, Bangladesh. --আফতাবুজ্জামান 18:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Plozessor 05:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Certainly sharp and beautiful composition but about half of the small stuppas have moire pattern. --C messier 20:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good and interesting image -- Spurzem 16:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good as QI --Kritzolina 20:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)