Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 16 2020

Consensual review edit

File:Feldkirchen_Dietrichstein_Dietrichsteiner_See_Holzreisig_04042020_7432.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Brushwood at the northern shoreline of lake Dietrichstein in Dietrichstein, Feldkirchen, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 02:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 05:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very random crop. --Kallerna 08:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good quality, and I like the composition in this picture frame, just as I would like it as abstract lines on paper. -- Ikan Kekek 12:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question @ Kallerna: is your statement a comment or an oppose? --Palauenc05 08:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Fixed it, thanks. --Kallerna 09:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 20:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Feldkirchen_Dietrichstein_Dietrichsteiner_See_Weidenäste_04042020_7420.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Branches of a willow on lake Dietrichstein in Dietrichstein, Feldkirchen, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 02:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition not in QI level. --Kallerna 08:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good quality, and I disagree on the composition. One could argue that the reflections would be nicer without the branches on the left being so dense, but I don't find that they spoil the composition and do add something to it. And then we're dealing with taste. -- Ikan Kekek 12:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment The reflections and the branches create a mess. This is not a art class, the photos should be valuable for the project. --Kallerna 09:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I find that comment very objectionable and also highly questionable. Commons is a repository of photos. We don't know what site might use which photo, and presuming that a photo couldn't possibly be useful to anyone because a particular person's imagination doesn't extend to thinking of a use for it is foolish and has been proven inaccurate in the past in cases when such an argument was offered. If an image is of quality and by a Commoner, it should pass here, end of story. This is not Valued Image Candidates, where each image must fit into a particular category we've determined is specifically useful. -- Ikan Kekek 00:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. The composition may be a question of taste. -- Spurzem 11:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 20:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Szenerie_am_Untreusee_20200324_03b.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination A row of bicycle racks at lake Untreu. --PantheraLeo1359531 10:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. Lack of Deep of field --Wilfredor 18:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree. DoF good enough --MB-one 20:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per MB-one. -- Ikan Kekek 05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overexposed. --Kallerna 09:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Slight flaws, but good idea and nice composition. --Palauenc05 11:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 20:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Ebi_Fry_002.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Fried Shrimp --Ocdp 13:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support - Very good composition and sharpness, but this could easily get sent to CR because you've cropped out the top. Try to avoid doing that. -- Ikan Kekek 14:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The top crop is unfortunate to me --Poco a poco 20:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Unfortunately, I don't have better pics. sorry.--Ocdp (talk) 13:36, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The crop spoils it. Bummer. It looks so yummy. --MB-one 14:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Appealing food photography needs more than acceptable sharpness and exposure. --Smial 09:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 08:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Babies_(Černý)_on_Kampa_(2).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Babies statue by David Černý on Kampa --Grtek 11:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • I'd be keen to support this if you straighten the verticals --Podzemnik 01:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Podzemnik:   Done, but I am not sure it was for good. I am affraid I deformed the statue a few. I have no more space under leg. Anyway, thx for review.--Grtek 12:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure either to be honest. Let's see what other folks think --Podzemnik 02:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd say it's leaning a bit to the right. ) --T.Bednarz 14:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I see no lack. Therefore good for me. -- Spurzem 21:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Absolutely OK to me. --Palauenc05 11:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think the viewpoint is inappropriate for the subject. Charlesjsharp 08:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 20:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Quality_Hotel_River_Station_nordfra_mars_2020_(1).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Quality Hotel River Station seen from the northern forest about a mile away.--Peulle 06:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality, main object is not shadowed --Michielverbeek 07:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
      Support Good quality. --MB-one 14:47, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
      Oppose Duplicate nomination --MB-one 15:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Extremely poor lighting. I do not understand that such a photo is presented here as a quality picture. -- Spurzem 17:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support - Spurzem, after you posted, I had to see what was so terrible. However, I don't see it. What I see is bright light on enough of the subject toward sunset, a combination of light and shade overall and a good composition. We actually often agree, but here's another example of us disagreeing. Do feel free to oppose, though. -- Ikan Kekek 00:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per ikan. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we do not. That's CR. --Smial 11:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not only do I agree with Spurzem, the building is not sharp. Seven Pandas 23:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No detail in the shades. --Kallerna 09:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too stong contrast between the facade in the light and the rest in the shade. --Palauenc05 11:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok for me. --Milseburg 19:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 20:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)