Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 22 2022

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:SC_Wiener_Neustadt_vs._Floridsdorfer_AC_2018-05-04_(057).jpg[edit]

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Peking_Great_Wall-20071019-RM-115941.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Section of the Great Wall at Badaling --Ermell 08:25, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support good quality. --Palauenc05 09:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, this picture is tilted to the left. --Imehling 15:37, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done You were right. Thanks for the review.--Ermell 21:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
      •  Support Now it's good. --Imehling 06:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 08:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Frontenac_Hotel,_Quebec_ville,_downtown_006.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Frontenac Hotel --Wilfredor 20:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality. --Adamant1 07:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose Not sharp enough, some objects are clearly out of focus. --VileGecko 19:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted IMO--Lmbuga 12:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 08:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

File:No_al_controllo_sociale_-_graffito_su_telo_di_plastica_nel_centro_di_Milano,_Lombardia,_Italia_-_2021-10-24.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Stancil graffiti in Milano, Italy. --Mænsard vokser 15:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 21:13, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose Regretfully I disagree. Not sharp enough for a flat surface image and too many JPEG artifacts. --GRDN711 22:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see any JPEG-artifacts, just the weave pattern of the plastik. --Granada 12:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support per Granada and Ermell. -- Ikan Kekek 03:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 08:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Repeater_antenna_on_Monte_Secco_Brembano_-_Piazzatorre,_Bergamo,_Lombardy,_Italy_-_2022-01-29.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Repeater antenna on Mount Secco Brembano, Italy. --Mænsard vokser 17:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. --VileGecko 20:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support seems ok. --Tomer T 13:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. --Steindy 12:26, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support per Tomer T --Ermell 21:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. --Imehling 11:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 08:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Πλατεία_Αμερικής_9858.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View of Amerikis square, Athens. --C messier 11:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 12:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA should be fixed. --Tomer T 11:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, it should. And am I seeing things or is this tilted?--Peulle 08:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done --C messier 17:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support per fixes. Tomer T 08:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Seems good enough. -- Ikan Kekek 00:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support OK now. --A.Savin 15:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 08:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Florence_-_Campanile.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Florence - Campanile of Cathedral --Imehling 14:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Bad focus --VileGecko 21:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
    I don't see what is bad about the focus of this picture. --Imehling 06:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI. --Steindy 13:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cropped people in the front --Michielverbeek 08:27, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Most of the tower is in good focus, people are part of this urban scene. Given the height of the tower, the slight softness near the top and cropping of 2-3 people are minor IMO. --Tagooty 14:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment This tower looks straight at the top, or at least correctly corrected vertically. But at the bottom it looks crooked. Since this is an old masonry, I can't judge whether it might actually be built somehow crooked in reality, or whether something went wrong during the photographing or the perspective correction. Sometimes I wish I had an image version for comparison that had not suffered any subsequent corrections. --Smial 14:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree with VileGecko. Tomer T 16:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. The top is unsharp due to upsampling from the perspective correction. Stretching the pixels in one part of the image is unavoidable unless you severely downsample the rest of the image. --King of Hearts 00:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support From experience I know that it is not easy to make it all fit into a frame so, given the distance from which you had to frame it, excellent photo. You have been really good. . PROPOLI87 16:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 16:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

 Support Good quality for me. --Sebring12Hrs 20:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  •  Support Good quality for me.--Lmbuga 12:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 08:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)