Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 10 2021

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:02-Nokor_Bachey_Pagoda-nX-13.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nokor Bachey Pagoda, Kampong Cham, Cambodia --PsamatheM 20:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Tilted to the left. --Remontees 20:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
     Comment I was unsure when processing as the area has suffered subsidence and from other photos and using central horizontals it's levelled as accurately and representatively as i could. On many of these old "ruins" built on sand they don't stay as vertical as we are used to buildings being. --PsamatheM 21:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
     Comment Requested Review as objection related to "tilted" but it's the nature of ruins particularly built on sand and subsidence. The camera has a level indicator and the image processing adjusted the levels based on other images and central horizontals. I could rotate to right but to me it best represents reality.PsamatheM 17:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak support This is a nice photo. The buildings really look like nothing is completely vertical any more. The wall in the background shows "tilting" both to the left (left side) and to the right (right side), which does not look like an artifact to me. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Comparing with images by others in the Category, and going by the statement of the photographer who has been there, I accept that the tilt is realistic. --Tagooty 15:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Since the tilt is apparently real, we should promote. -- Ikan Kekek 23:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted XRay 05:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Risør_brann_24.2.21_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Buildings in Risør, damaged by fire February 24th 2021. Photo taken from the hill north of the town.--Peulle 11:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Lack of light in my opinion. --Remontees 22:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Well, IMHO the photo could be improved by a perspective correction, but I see no general “lack of light”; dark roofs must be dark in a photo. Therefore IMHO we should discuss this one. --Aristeas 09:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Commonists 18:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted XRay 05:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Salzburg_Wetterstation_1888.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Weather station (1888) in Salzburg, Austria. --Palauenc05 10:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Tilted photo + lack of exposition. --Remontees 21:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Other opinions please. Where is that "lack of exposition"? --Palauenc05 07:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Object is tilted, not the photograph. --XRay 05:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Per XRay --Moroder 09:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Johann Jaritz 04:30, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. By the way, a photograph has exposure. An exposition is a show, such as when photographs are shown in a gallery, though we use the word "show" much more often in English. -- Ikan Kekek 23:42, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted XRay 05:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC))

File:Porta_San_Zeno_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Facade of Porta San Zeno in Verona, Italy --Lo Scaligero 14:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Too tilted. --Remontees 22:33, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment It would be more polite and helpful to ask first (with a comment) if the tilt can be fixed, instead of declining the photo right away. --Aristeas 11:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Just to give the nominator some time to correct the tilt. --Palauenc05 16:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
    ✓ Done, thank you all! --Lo Scaligero (talk) 06:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much CAs on the white part of the building. Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 08:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Qi for me, nice composition --Moroder 09:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • OK for me, now (my support vote s.a.). --Palauenc05 09:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Overall nice and beautiful, the tilt is gone, and most of the CAs have also been fixed (the remaining small traces are not irritating). --Aristeas 09:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak support--Commonists 18:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted XRay 05:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Kirchschönbach_Kirche-20210321-RM-171647.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Catholic parish church St. Jakob in Kirchschönbach --Ermell 06:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 08:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
     Oppose The exposure and lighting are not good enough I think. --Remontees 21:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm OK with the exposure, lighting, etc., but there is magenta CA on the top of the spire. -- Ikan Kekek 06:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Per Ikan Kekek few CAs on the building, and a bit noisy but ok IMO. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Remontees Mais quel est votre problème ? Essayez de mieux comprendre quelles photos sont bonnes et lesquelles ne le sont pas, vous prenez des photos trop aléatoires.Salutations.--Commonists 09:55, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted XRay 05:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)