Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 17 2017

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Schwedter_Steg,_Berlin,_1705280654,_ako_(bw).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bridge "Schwedter Steg" in Berlin-Prenzlauer Berg. --Code 07:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Brilliant. Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 08:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I was just about to make a comment when JJ beat me to it ... the redlink category needs fixing, and I think I see some artifacts on the curved parts of the bridge, not sure that can be fixed.--Peulle 08:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment The redlink category is fixed. I can't see any artefacts. I think you're going much too far with pixelpeeping here. --Code 09:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Very good, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 12:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment For me this composition is even a candidate for FP. Sure! -- Johann Jaritz 13:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Johann: Good quality.--Manfred Kuzel 14:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support OK. --A.Savin 12:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 20:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Μαθιά Ηρακλείου 0116.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Mathia, Crete. --C messier 13:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose This is too hazy IMO. Feel free to change to discuss if you disagree --Xicotencatl 23:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMHO, it is sharp enough and the level of contrast sufficient. Please discuss. --C messier 17:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness is good. Weather could have been better, but this motif has no problem with haze. --Milseburg 11:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support QI in my opinion - I share the arguments from Milseburg --J. Lunau (talk) 14:24, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 20:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)