Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 23 2022

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:SV_Mattersburg_vs._SK_Rapid_Wien_2015-11-21_(003).jpg[edit]

  • Overruling a procedural decline? That's new. For those who don't understand what happened here, this image was nominated two days in a row. As a matter of procedure, I therefore declined the latest one. Apparently, Alexis Lours didn't understand this either.--Peulle 07:53, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused as to how this happened as I only remember supporting the first upload, and certainly not the second after a decline. Thinking a bug in QIVoter which would have made it match with the first file with the same filename it found on the list, being the second upload? --Alexis Lours 00:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Front_Right_Dutch_Church_Kollam_Kerala_Mar22_A7C_01542.jpg[edit]

These are part of the setting by the beach. They could not be avoided except by using an ultra-wide lens which would introduce distortion in the building. I request other opinions. --Tagooty 15:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sri_Lankan_leopard_(Panthera_pardus_kotiya)_female_3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sri Lankan leopard (Panthera pardus kotiya) female --Charlesjsharp 12:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 20:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree. There is too much covered of the Leopard for my taste. Let's see what other users say. --Steindy 22:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support The only thing that really matters is that we see her face, though we also see her tail, etc. I don't get voting against this. What a look from her! -- Ikan Kekek 05:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Revenge vote from Steindy who has no understanding how challenging this sort of image is. Unfortunately, leopard do not prowl on the football pitches of Austria. Charlesjsharp 11:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good for such challenging photo. --Nefronus 10:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

File:002_2015_04_23_Feuerwehr_und_Feuerwehrbedarf.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Historical fire engine from Ahrens-Fox (USA, Cincinnati, Ohio)
    --F. Riedelio 16:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose tire cropped --Charlesjsharp 10:14, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
     Support I disagree! Outstanding photo. Everyone can imagine what the rest of the tire looks like. --Steindy 21:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Yeah, fine picture to me. -- Ikan Kekek 05:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support --Stepro 01:05, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

File:At_Orient_Point,_Long_Island_2018_13.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cape Henlopen, off Orient Point, Suffolk County --Mike Peel 22:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry: not sharp enough for QI, horizon tilt to the right, disturbing dolphins. --F. Riedelio 09:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    @F. Riedelio: Would you mind elaborating please? I've tweaked the horizon - but only by 0.2°, there's land on the right. Which parts aren't sharp? Where are the dolphins? Thanks. Mike Peel 21:21, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: The horizon is straight now. The right third of the image is blurred (cars). The dolphins are in the foreground. --F. Riedelio 08:46, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I hadn't heard that use of the word 'dolphin' before, was looking at the water to see if I'd missed the animals somehow! It looks sufficiently sharp to me? But if not, fair enough. Thanks. Mike Peel 17:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per F. Riedelio. --Fischer.H 10:14, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

File:At_La_Palma_2021_1793.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Eclectus roratus in La Palma --Mike Peel 21:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 23:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
    borderline; focus has missed the eye --Charlesjsharp 10:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Regardig the resolution which allows prints in A3 size or larger without sharpness issues the image is by far good enough as QI. Composition probably not absolutely perfect, but very nice lighting, colours appear realistic. --Smial 09:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks under-exposed with low depth of field. --GRDN711 01:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Hamburg,Wikipedia_Ahoi,_Barkassenfahrt_NIK_6834.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ein Schubschiff mit absenkbarem Steuerhaus. --Nightflyer 19:15, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose It needs a perspective correction --Michielverbeek 20:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 20:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
    Different previews at the same time, so to CR --Michielverbeek 22:14, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
     Comment Sorry, that are one photo. Please mark the QR. Gruss --Nightflyer 22:58, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
     Comment @Michielverbeek: Gruss --Nightflyer 11:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry! I think the choice of subject is bad. It could certainly have been avoided that the cranes were cut off on the left and right. Also, I don't think the coordinates are correct. --Steindy 14:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    @Steindy: Take an look on this picture (for Coordinates). Gruss --Nightflyer 18:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Michielverbeek. --Trougnouf 14:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
    @Trougnouf: Please mark the QR. Gruss --Nightflyer 18:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Nightflyer: The what? --Trougnouf 18:54, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
     Comment You says: per Michielverbeek. He says: It needs a perspective correction. Gruss --Nightflyer 23:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
  • What is a QR though? --Trougnouf 09:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Michielverbeek. --Fischer.H 10:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:48, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Lissabon_-_House_in_Chiado.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lissabon - House in Chiado --Imehling 06:57, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Camera shake, see top half, not a QI to me, sorry --Poco a poco 08:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  I withdraw my nomination You are right. --Imehling 12:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
    It was a failure of the panorama editor. I have uploaded a new version. --Imehling 12:54, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
     Comment now that the ghosting of the rof tiles is fixed the sky and antenna are lacking structure and detail compared to the first version --Virtual-Pano 21:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
    • Ok, another attempt... --Imehling 07:39, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support This version is a QI to me. -- Ikan Kekek 05:07, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Weak support the third attempt is good enough for QI (just) IMO --Virtual-Pano 10:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 14:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO Good Quality. --F. Riedelio 11:11, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

File:History_Casimir_Church_Kollam_Kerala_Mar22_R16_05826.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination History plaque of St. Casimir's Church, Kollam, Kerala --Tagooty 15:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose A bit too soft, given the subject --MB-one 13:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
@MB-one: Please see the new version, with sharpening and NR applied. --Tagooty 04:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support, good enough IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 09:24, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI. --Steindy 14:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO sarp enough for QI --F. Riedelio 11:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:47, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

File:Idukki_Reservoir_Boat_Jetty_View_Cheruthony_Kerala_Mar22_A7C_01194.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Idukki Reservoir from above Forest Dept boat jetty, Cheruthony, Kerala --Tagooty 03:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose foreground branch --Charlesjsharp 15:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
This was taken from a forest with a small "window" in the trees. To me, the branches form a frame and give perspective. I've uploaded a new version with reduced branches. --Tagooty 02:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support I like the first version better, but the cropped version is also good enough for QIC. --Smial 01:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 Thank you. I've reverted to the original crop. --Tagooty 02:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry! I find the fuzzy thick black branch at the top left and the fuzzy leaves at the bottom right very disturbing. --Steindy 14:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think the composition would be improved if the image was cropped just enough to get rid of the two branches on top. I'm  Neutral as it is. --Trougnouf 14:54, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Steindy and Trougnouf. --F. Riedelio 17:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)