Oppose Resolution is low (though it does barely meet our minimum), and this seems fuzzy and out of focus. I think we have better images. cmadler (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This photograph is released under creative commons Share like 3.0 license. The more appropriate copyright tag is added. Also geocoded for further review. --Yjenith (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She is essentially a beauty pageant titleholder and not an actress at all. Since 2010 she just has tried to launch an actress career. There are thousands of girls like her. It seems that we have to place all of them in one group together with Sophia Loren, Gérard Philipe, Michel Piccoli, Jeremy Irons, Robert De Niro, Charles Chaplin, Claude Monet... Shame on all of us... We do nothing here. Alas, we have no choice since we work under the dictate of the crowd. Unfortunately, from a long time many articles in wikipedia cannot be used for reference at all. These articles can be marked for deletion.--MrPanyGoff09:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment but you can't even see her face properly cause she is not looking at the camera, the crop is unfortunate cause the top of her head is missing,the blur is excessive with parts of her hair and right shoulder being blured. Just wanna know why you think this is better so atleast I can be clear about the criteria for a picture being VI.Boseritwik (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I still support this one as best in scope and meeting all criteria. Certainly the edges of her hair and right shoulder are blurred, but her face is in focus at a high resolution. Also important to the present comparison, in the other image her forehead, chin, and cheeks are washed out by the flash/glare. cmadler (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The other one has higher resolution, but we're supposed to judge the photos at review size, and in review size, this photo is much bigger. I also prefer the background, but that could be because I have sore eyes tonight. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that this image is best if one must be chosen, but I wonder if it wouldn't be better to illustrate this with a set of one photo from each side? cmadler (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support For me, the bright streetlights on either side detract somewhat from this view of the gate, and while the lights at the right could be easily cropped, removing the lights at left would necessitate also cropping part of the guardhouse. Despite this shortcoming, however, I think this image is best because the lighting on the gate (and especially on the quadriga) is more muted, resulting in less of a washed-out look. cmadler (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My remark was just for the record, to register that the interpretation of the guidelines has changed between 2009 and now. It is a noticeable evolution of the VIC "jurisprudence", worthy to be pointed out. --Myrabella (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better exposure control than in the alternative. Marginal value difference. Concerning the scope I am OK with the night scope as the Brandenburger Tor is very notable and has a special night appearance. That would probably also have been my opinion in 2009, if I had voted. But nevertheless interesting observation by Myrabella. --Slaunger (talk) 06:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I tend to prefer this one, because I see a part of the roof, and then it gives me more informations about the building. The other one has a better technical quality but shows only the façade.--Jebulon (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't decide which one is better. Finally, I suppose we should demote the new candidate as not being nominated in accordance with the rules, meaning via MVR.--MrPanyGoff20:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the lightning condition are a little better here, and for me it "wins" over the fact that a bit more of the roof is seen in the alternative. --Slaunger (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
