Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 15 2023

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Dryocopus_pileatus_UL_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pileated woodpecker --Cephas 13:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Wee Hong 17:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose tail is cropped --Charlesjsharp 17:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Charlesjsharp --LexKurochkin 08:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 12:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

File:20201031_Kreuzkapelle_Püttlingen_05.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A crucifix near the chapel of the Holy Cross in Püttlingen --FlocciNivis 10:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. -- 05:42, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Some parts of the main object are blown out. In addition there is a very strong asymmetrical lens distortion. --Augustgeyler 11:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree. The arms are blown out.--Der Angemeldete 12:54, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree, too. It's a very interesting cross, but it's blown. Please photograph this motif again if you have the chance; the composition is not at all bad, but a really excellent photograph of this motif with a higher crop might be an FPC candidate. -- Ikan Kekek 04:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined Mike Peel 20:46, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

File:CN_Tower_at_Toronto_04.jpg

[edit]

Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Ikan Kekek 04:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

File:20150922_Belem_DSC06852_16x9_PtrQs.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sailing ship »Belem« (1896) off the coast of Brittany near Audierne, France. By User:PtrQs --Augustgeyler 00:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 00:53, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too width, maybe crop the right section. --Cr7Carlos 00:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  • It's a good composition with 1:2, two thirds at the direction of the ship. Please read en:Rule of thirds. --XRay 14:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Right good as it is. A ship on the wide sea. --Milseburg 11:13, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 Question Why is it mirrored?--Der Angemeldete 12:48, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  • There is nothing mirrored. Please look at the ship, the name is clearly visible: BELEM. --XRay 14:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
I see, so the wind might've turned the flags around.--Der Angemeldete 21:25, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support --XRay 14:11, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support --Fabian Roudra Baroi 20:22, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Milseburg --LexKurochkin 08:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Is the boat going to our left? If so, the greater amount of water should probably be on the left. But be that as it may, it's no reason not to support such a well-taken image or respect your artistic license. -- Ikan Kekek 04:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted Mike Peel 20:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Yin_Ji_Chang_Fen,_Chinatown,_New_York-L1002093.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Restaurant Yin Ji Chang Fen in Chinatown, Manhattan, at night --Frank Schulenburg 16:11, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Very good shot by night. --Sebring12Hrs 16:18, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Underexposed --Dmartin969 16:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Night mood well shot --XRay 10:31, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Exposure time could've be longer here, but the ISO seems ok. Not outmarking and there's still noise in it, but ok.--Der Angemeldete 10:35, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me -- Spurzem 18:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO ok. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 20:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. Not much noise, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 04:23, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted Mike Peel 20:43, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Ebrach_Klosterkirche_Turm-20060709-RM-192519.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Crossing tower and abbey church of the former monastery in Ebrach --Ermell 07:59, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Very good composition! --Augustgeyler 10:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not sure about the composition on this one. What is the intended subject? --Dmartin969 16:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
    •  Info Hey Dmartin969, you should not switch a promoted nomination to "comment". If you want oppose to someone else's pro, please set the nomination to "Discuss" --Augustgeyler 16:20, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment To leave a question here, that can be discussed: could the crop on the turret be tighter? It's quality seems acceptable herself.--Der Angemeldete 10:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
    •  Question Where exactly do you think it should be cropped in more? --Augustgeyler 11:44, 10 March 2023 (UTC) --August Geyler (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
      • I would crop behind the third pinnacle, so that the baroque styled turret would be in the centre, leaving out the romanesque parts.--Der Angemeldete 12:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
        • I don't agree. Do not crop anything. The image is very good like that. --Sebring12Hrs 20:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
          • I don't agree. Endorsing the composition with a single opinion of Sebring12Hrs shouldn't abondon one from trying a further one with a tighter crop. It's even uncertain, if this further one wouldn't become a QI either. A vote of one or two persons for promotion is not a statement against that.--Der Angemeldete 21:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 18:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Composition is good, please don't crop. --XRay 14:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support QI to me --Poco a poco 10:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per others and I would prefer no crop. -- Ikan Kekek 04:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   No crop needed. Mike Peel 20:41, 14 March 2023 (UTC)