Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 25 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Поляна_Бианки,_набережная_1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Glade Bianchi --Olga Dobrosinska 14:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Zcebeci 17:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Clouds are partly looking unnatural. --Milseburg 20:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment They look OK to me. What are you seeing, Milseburg? -- Ikan Kekek 07:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
The clouds in the middle are ok, but look at the upper part of the sky. The colors are strange. --Milseburg (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
A little blue. Does that sometimes happen when wispy clouds are photographed? -- Ikan Kekek 03:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low sharpness for me. --A.Savin 12:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 19:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Вид на Чёрное море и долину Ада на горе Караул-Оба. Крым.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Горный массив Караул-Оба: Морское лесничество, кв. 45, Новый Свет, Судак, КрымЯ, владелец авторских прав на это произведение, добровольно публикую его на условиях следующей лицензии:Это изображение загружено в ходе конкурса Вики любит Землю — 2019. --Александр Рудный 17:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality. --Frank Schulenburg 18:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
     Oppose for now - your photos are good, but please use a meaningful filename. -- Ikan Kekek 09:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose good image but insufficient filename. --MB-one 10:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 10:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Bell_tower,_Schaan_(1Y7A2268)_(cropped).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Old bell tower, Schaan --MB-one 08:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment I think it would be good to crop out the large part of empty street and focus on the tower itself. --Domob 15:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for the review. --MB-one 10:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks, much better! It still looks leaning to the right, but it may just be an illusion? Otherwise it is QI for me. --Domob 13:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Definitely tilted and that road work in front of the tower is very distracting. --Palauenc05 08:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Fixed tilt. --MB-one 09:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support For me it is good quality now with the fix to the tilt. I do agree though that the composition is not the best (probably could not have been better). --Domob 16:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, it could definitely be better, just wait until until the street work is finished and come back. According to the guidelines, foregrounds "should not be distracting".--Palauenc05 17:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. The street work is not beautiful, yes, but that’s reality, and the tower is rendered well. --Aristeas 08:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose 329/5000 Most users no longer seem to care what is shown in a picture and how it is designed. The main thing: it is sharp. It was the same way some time ago when someone had photographed the entrance and the balconies of an unimaginative row house. However, I still see it differently. -- Spurzem 09:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Spurzem: It would be interesting to know, what specifically is lacking here in your opinion. Thank you --MB-one 10:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Why do we have guidelines? Just for the fun of it? Maybe I'm too critical, but I would never take a shot with such a chaotic foreground, let alone upload or even nominate it as QI. --Palauenc05 11:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@MB-one: It's the disturbing foreground. Look at this image; it was declined because of the "many distracting parts", especially the disturbing yellow car in the front of the green Opel Rekord. -- Spurzem 11:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The left crop bothers me. The roadworks in the foreground are also a bit disturbing.--Peulle 12:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Nothing wrong with this image, clear QI for me. --King of Hearts 15:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Reaches the QI level --Milseburg 21:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 10:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Ardhanarishvara_(makeup).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ardhanarishvara, (Sanskrit: “Lord Who Is Half Woman”) composite male-female figure of the Hindu god Shiva together with his consort Parvati --Tiven2240 11:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 12:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are haloes in several places. See if you can fix them, but for now, I'm opposing. -- Ikan Kekek 02:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose +1 --Peulle 11:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support sufficient quality for QI in my eyes --Kritzolina 16:49, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I wish DoF would be better. --XRay 04:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per Kritzolina. The small flaws do not bother at normal viewing distances. The very beautiful lighting and composition easily compensate for this. --Smial 12:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Haloes are not significant relative to the 19 MP size IMO. -- King of Hearts 15:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --MB-one 09:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --MB-one 09:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)--MB-one 09:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)--Milseburg 10:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)