Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 07 2019

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Water_pipeline_and_firehydrant_sign_at_the_Blücherbrücke_Hof_14082019.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Two signs on a rod in Hof. --PantheraLeo1359531 10:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Sorry, too simple, it's too far off QI. --Streetdeck 09:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
    I disagree. What is that supposed to be a strange reason?  Support --Steindy 11:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per @Streetdeck. IMO lacks sufficient value for QI. --GRDN711 19:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The sign is too bright and its high position looks not good. -- Spurzem 19:44, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Somewhat overexposed and a strange mix of oversharpening and blurring noise reduction. But "too simple" is imho no valid reason to reject a photo. If the depicted object is simple, it is. -- Smial 21:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 17:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Cemetery_Kremenetz_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Jewish cemetery in Kremenets (by Mummik) --Andrew J.Kurbiko 16:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 04:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dust spots in the sky --Armenak Margarian 13:43, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Armenak. Fix the dust spots and I'll judge the quality of the photo. -- Ikan Kekek 05:04, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry! If neither the photographer nor the adjuster is interested in fixing the easily repairable errors, just keep {{o}}. --Steindy 12:10, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Steindy, you can't use the oppose symbol twice. I tried to fix that using "nowiki", but it would be best if you would delete the second oppose symbol. -- Ikan Kekek 19:01, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 01:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Christopher_Columbus_monument_-_San_Juan,_Puerto_Rico_-_DSC07103.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Columbus Monument, San Juan, Puerto Rico -Another Believer 20:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 00:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality: noise and chromatic aberration. --A.Savin 12:23, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Question Can you mark up the CA? --Steindy 11:46, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable IMO.--Ermell 07:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support QI --Ralf Roletschek 20:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose vignetting, pixelated. --Carschten 18:10, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As A.Savin --Bgag 00:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Poco a poco 08:28, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support --GRDN711 19:42, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 15:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose due to the vignetting. Remove it, or add some more artificial vignetting as a special effect. It's a bit noisy (could be removed, maybe with applying a layer mask). And there is a little thing appearing at the bottom on the left side. -- DerFussi 16:08, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 01:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]