Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 11 2018

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:2018._Escultura_de_Gonzalo_de_Vigo._Vigo._Galiza.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Statue of Gonzalo de Vigo, Vigo, Galicia (Spain). --Lmbuga 15:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 16:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks blown to me.--Peulle 17:10, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good quality to me. Nothing, or certainly nothing of importance (who cares about a few twigs, if that's what you're complaining about) looks blown to me. -- Ikan Kekek 06:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support. I tried to see where it should be blown and see only a good image. -- Spurzem 14:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Spurzem --Cvmontuy (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Perfectly OK. --Palauenc05 18:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 00:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

File:BijouEgyptien MHNT.ETH.2012.23.99.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Square ring engraved --Ercé 06:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • {{o}}  Comment Good picture, but sorry, in my opinion is distorted (left side is big than right side). Tilted. Tilted to hide the problem?--Lmbuga 01:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Better "discuss"--Lmbuga 13:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I'm not sure but perhaps improvable--Lmbuga 09:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Basotxerri 15:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Riksbron - January 2018.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Vasabron bridge in Stockholm, Sweden --Teevee 20:37, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --GT1976 20:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  • {{o}} There are at least three big dust spots. Collors seems unnatural IMO, sorry.--Lmbuga 00:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I have pointed five dust spot in a small part of the image--Lmbuga 00:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have removed the dust spots. --Teevee 16:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I see in a really fast scan min. two more. Check out left bridge side and go up to the sky (two fat ones). Anyway U get my pro vote without dust spot´s. I like the colours and think they give an good Imagination (the dark side from the shadows are a little bit special) --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 19:03, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for the heads-up! Those spots are gone too. I can't comment much on the colors. Those are as they were. I haven't done anything special to alter the colors. --Teevee 19:28, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Still think you need a sensor cleaning maid ;-9 Deep colours come from sensor setup /(down and left at river side), really ok bcs. i trust WB/colours from first time. --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 22:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good quality to me. -- Ikan Kekek 07:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good quality to me. --Fischer.H 08:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Better now --Lmbuga 09:43, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 11:55, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Leipzig Steibs Hof Portal.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Portal of "Steibs Hof" in Leipzig. --Palauenc05 18:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Not very sharp --Moroder 21:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Other opinions please. --Palauenc05 09:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support. What is not very sharp or not sharp enough? For me definite QI. -- Spurzem 15:39, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks overexposed.--Peulle 15:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support good enough --Sandro Halank 22:17, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support per Spurzem--Ermell 08:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Basotxerri 15:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

File:2018-01-15_Olympiaeinkleidung_Deutschland_2018_by_Sandro_Halank–018.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Investiture of the German team for Winter Olympics 2018 in Pyeonchang: Denise Herrmann --Sandro Halank 09:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The person in the foreground just spoils it, sorry, not a QI to me --Poco a poco 10:00, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support. QI for me. Without the conversation partner in the foreground there woud be no relation. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 15:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Poco. The problem isn't that the interviewer (or part of him) is visible but that he's this big unsharp blob in the foreground that messes up the picture. -- Ikan Kekek 13:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Disturbing foreground. --Peulle 15:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support As for Spurzem. --Smial 07:55, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Just a snap for me and I don´t see any idea to take the shoot as it should be. The mic´s (microphones) give enough details to show the job. Aber ein wirklich großes rechtes Ohr erwischt, mea culpa ;-) --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 19:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support as Spurzem. --Ralf Roletschek 00:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine for me. --Palauenc05 15:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ikan Kekek. --Fischer.H 14:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 00:42, 11 March 2018 (UTC)