Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 26 2021

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Deep_Ellum_sidewalk_covered_with_snow_in_Dallas_snow_storm_2021.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Deep Ellum sidewalk covered with snow in Dallas snow storm 2021 --Matthew T Rader 19:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Miha Peče 19:30, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Just recently nominated and declined -- are you planning to re-nominate it repeatedly until you get the result you like? --A.Savin 02:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Already declined and no modification. --XRay 10:43, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC).
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 00:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Bank_of_America_in_Dallas_Snow_2021.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bank of America in Dallas Snow 2021 --Matthew T Rader 19:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Miha Peče 19:32, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Just recently nominated and declined -- are you planning to re-nominate it repeatedly until you get the result you like? --A.Savin 02:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Already declined and no modification. --XRay 10:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC).
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 00:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Trassem_Höhe_ü_M.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Benchmark of Königlich Preußische Landesaufnahme (202,441 m. above Normalnull) at the Saint Erasmus Church in Trassem, Germany.--Palauenc05 18:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose The bottom right corner is blurred, sorry. --Саня Новиков 20:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment The picture is crisp sharp. --Palauenc05 21:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Excellent photo. The lower right corner is not part of the subject and is of no importance. -- Ikan Kekek 03:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me --Isiwal 08:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I do not see any problem --LexKurochkin 09:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO OK. --XRay 10:42, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 22:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 12:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Lakshman_Jhula_Bridge_-_Hrishikesh_-_Uttarakhand_001.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lakshman Jhula Bridge - Hrishikesh - Uttarakhand--Vijay Barot 15:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 13:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Disagree, picture is to unsharp. --Geoprofi Lars 19:39, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, not sharp enough, visible CA --LexKurochkin 09:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 11:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 12:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Hamburg,_Truss_of_Niedernfelder_Bruecken.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hamburg, truss of old "Niedernfelder Bruecken" for railway. (demolished 2010) --KaiBorgeest 23:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Unsharp and low-resolution --Trougnouf 18:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

  •  Comment I disagree, 3.75 MPixel exceed the minimum requirement of 2 MPixel (and back in 2004 it was still a lot). --KaiBorgeest 21:14, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose But it's not sharp. -- Ikan Kekek 06:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. A clear VIC for me, as the bridge no longer exists. --Milseburg 10:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 12:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

File:London_Market_Porter,_Borough,_SE1-20130714-RM-201327.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Pub the Market Porter in Southwark --Ermell 07:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  SupportGood quality. --Berthold Werner 09:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  OpposeI disagree. Need chromatic aberration correction on the upper left roff --Wilfredor 12:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for the review.--Ermell 20:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine for me. --Palauenc05 08:14, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 00:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Brushtail_Possum_with_baby_-_AndrewMercer_-_DSC10671.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Brushtail Possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) with baby. Brisbane, Australia --Bald white guy 07:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose adult's face blurred --Charlesjsharp 22:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
    •  Comment That's fair looking at the photo now. Handheld shot in dark forest with long lens (hence high ISO). I was just happy finding them since they're nocturnal. :-) --Bald white guy 08:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Considering the circumstances of the shot and the high resolution, it's acceptable for me. --Palauenc05 22:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Bald white guy talked about a "Handheld shot in dark forest with long lens". That sounds somewhat special, doesn't it? --Palauenc05 18:28, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Neutral  Overprocessed To me it looks more overprocessed than blurred, may I suggest to try reprocessing the original raw? --LexKurochkin (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Per LexKurochkin: There are some areas with unbalanced suppression of image noise. I tend to prefer to tolerate a bit more image noise if the high ISO setting is unavoidable. I find this mix of completely smoothed areas and those with "natural" noise very irritating. In every other aspect, I think the photo is really well done. --Smial 10:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is to unsharp for me, especially the face of the bigger one --Geoprofi Lars 11:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per above--Commonists 19:51, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 12:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Wood statue of Virgin Mary in church Saint-Thomas-d'Aquin, Québec, Canada.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Photographs of Église Saint-Thomas-d'Aquin, Québec --Wilfredor 20:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficient DoF, just the face is in focus --Uoaei1 06:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. Not only the face is in focus, all the main object (the wood sculture) is in focus. --Wilfredor 16:39, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
    •  Comment @Wilfredor: just a hint: Nominators are not supposed to vote in this process.
      • Fixed Sorry, it was my mistake while editing. --LexKurochkin 10:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment The main object (the wood sculpture) is in focus upper the main figure waist, below it is partly blurred, but good enough for me. On the other hand I would suggest to categorize it more specifically and improve the description.
  • ✓ Done --Wilfredor 02:59, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
    •  Support OK. Thank you. --LexKurochkin 09:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please check (and improve) the filename. I don't think a filename beginning with "Photographs of" is a good name for a single photograph. --XRay 07:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Commonists 19:53, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Kritzolina 09:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 12:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)