Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 24 2021

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:20210902_St_Antonius_Pfarrkirche,_Hinterstein_-_123.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination St. Antonius, Hinterstein, Allgäu --Zinnmann 21:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose I don't like the composition. The book shelves are too dominant. --Hillopo2018 07:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
    I beg to differ. The composition was delibaretly chosen to underline the visitors impression when entering the church. Please discuss. --Zinnmann 09:28, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Although the windows show eroded lights, overall I think the photo is good enough for QIC. --Smial 11:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Outblown windows. --Steindy 00:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Hillopo2018. Needs crops right, left and above. Probably matter of taste ?--Jebulon 21:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I can understand that it was a conscious decision to have the book shelves in frame, but they are clearly out of focus. --C messier 22:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 06:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Star_of_Eldar_Riazanov_on_walk_of_Actor's_Fame_of_Vyborg.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Star of Eldar Riazanov on walk of Actor's Fame of Vyborg --Reda Kerbouche 07:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Sorry! If you take such photos, then as a photographer you should at least make the effort to remove dirt and objects from the monument. That is not a QI for me. --Steindy 23:57, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry I disagree with you, please other opinions.--Reda Kerbouche 07:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support OK. -- Ikan Kekek 06:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan. --King of Hearts 22:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan. --Smial 07:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose because of the shadow in the corner --Jebulon 21:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jebulon --Tagooty 08:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jebulon --Milseburg 12:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 06:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Sargo común (Diplodus sargus), Parque natural de la Arrábida, Portugal, 2020-07-21, DD 58.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination White seabream (Diplodus sargus), Arrábida National Park, Portugal --Poco a poco 10:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Palauenc05 12:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Question Are you sure that it is an Oblada melanura? The black spot at the tail and the vertical bands (the oblada melanura doesn't have vertical bands) reminds of a Diplodus sargus. --C messier 21:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    I fixed the id, thanks again C messier --Poco a poco 08:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Disturbing luminance noise IMO. --F. Riedelio 14:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
    I don't see any noise to be honest and it was a small fish, I see detail here. What do you mean? F. Riedelio Poco a poco 08:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO the fish is not sharp/detailed enough for QI and the background is noisy. --F. Riedelio 10:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Question How big was it? -- Ikan Kekek 08:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • If I remember right about 15 centimetres (5.9 in) Poco a poco 08:36, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks. Small fish, but the sharpness and level of detail feels borderline to me, and I'm not convinced enough to support at this point. -- Ikan Kekek 06:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Perhaps in the background? --Trougnouf 10:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Most the noise I see is in the blue background, it would look much better if it was smoother. --Trougnouf 19:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I really struggle to assess underwater shots, but this seems OK. Atlantic dive site never going to offer finest visibility. Charlesjsharp 20:43, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --GRDN711 11:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 06:34, 23 September 2021 (UTC)