Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 19 2021

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Mary_Magdalene_church_in_Troistorrents_08.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mary Magdalene church in Troistorrents, Valais, Switzerland. --Tournasol7 13:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    Green CA along the edges of the roof, green and purple CA on parts of the roof. --Tagooty 14:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry, I don't see the CA. --Tournasol7 19:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
    I've added notes to the image --Tagooty 02:57, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry but I don't see CA there. --Tournasol7 19:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
     Oppose Let's move this to CR to get other opinions. --Tagooty 02:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see any CA on my 23.5-inch monitor. -- Ikan Kekek 07:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I can't see any CA either but the cropped cars are disturbing. Alvesgaspar 08:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  SupportThe green could be dyed ridge tiles or they could be made of a material that is susceptible to growth of moss. or lichen. There are also some greenish discolored areas on the roof surfaces. I would say it has to be that way. Parking cars or disturbing construction fences (on the right in the picture) will probably not be prevented in Central Europe nowadays, when taking photos near streets, in towns, settlements, cities. Said objects are not compatible with an amonous landscape, but to demand their absence, I think, is completely exaggerated in QIC. The cars in this case do not obscure the main subject, so the QIC requirements are certainly met. --Smial 12:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
  •  Support Don't see the CAs even with pixel peeping --Moroder 12:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Smial's explanation, struck out my oppose. --Tagooty 02:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 06:33, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 06:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

File:Tree_at_Chimbuk_Tourist_Center.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A common deciduous tree at Meghla Tourist Complex. --RockyMasum 08:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality, but what about the Metadata? --Milseburg 13:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
    Somehow data of camera manufacturer & camera model deleted. --RockyMasum 01:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
     Support Metadata is nice to have, but not absolutely necessary, so promoting this as good quality --Kritzolina 08:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC) Yes, but no Metadata would better then this strange Metadata. @RockyMasum: An answer would be fine. --Milseburg 13:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
    Don't know how the data changed. I did not remove anything. Hope now you are happy and it's clear to you. --RockyMasum 16:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. If you know what species of tree we're looking at, please add a category for it. -- Ikan Kekek 06:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 00:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 06:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 06:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)