Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 22 2019

Consensual review edit

File:Vista_aérea_de_los_Andes,_Perú,_2015-08-03,_DD_01.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Aerial view of the Andes, Perú --Poco a poco 11:41, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Eatcha 14:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The sharpness is worth a discussion I think. --Ermell 19:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
    Please, note that the shot was taken from a plane and there is a big area here that would require a huge DoF. I've increased sharpness also a bit in a new version --Poco a poco 11:49, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharpness is fine given the resolution. --MB-one 20:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   -- Seven Pandas 12:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

File:1950_Ford_V8-Pilot_3.6L_at_Capel_Manor,_Enfield,_London,_England.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination 1950 Ford V8-Pilot. --Acabashi 09:25, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 14:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
      Oppose Beautiful car, good sharpness but unfortunate shadow. I think it is not a QI. Please diskuss. -- Spurzem 16:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support not perfect lighting but more than good enough for QI. --MB-one 07:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I think the shadow shouldn't be the reason for a rejection here.--Ermell 08:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment If by the 'shadow' is meant that under the car, I rendered it with wider HDR, but it looked plastic. If it's the dappling, I'm always seduced by that, as I think it gives any picture a more nuanced effect than bald front or side lighting. Thanks for the comments. Acabashi 11:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 01:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Eatcha 09:35, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   -- Seven Pandas 12:01, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Riku-lu-4169.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination 北京市天坛. By User:Sherlock zhang --Piotr Bart 11:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
      Support Good quality. --Chenspec 09:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
      Oppose Needs tilt/perspective correction. Also, not a fan of the prossesing done. --C messier 17:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per C messier, also colors are off. --MB-one 07:20, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. This looks to me like an old analog picture from the 1950s or so, printed somewhere, with colors faded by time, not a 2017 digital photo, and moreover, it's a snapshot with a random left crop. -- Ikan Kekek 01:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Seven Pandas 11:59, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Villa_san_donato,_firenze,_06.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Villa San Donato entrance, Florence, Italy --Sailko 08:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose A bit too soft overall --MB-one 09:10, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question MB-one too soft means what? I do not understand. Thank you --Sailko 08:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment It lacks sharpness and detail. --MB-one 09:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Piotr Bart 14:37, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As MB-one said. --XRay 05:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good for me -- Spurzem 12:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann 10:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Definitely per MB-one Poco a poco 17:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too noisy/unsharp. --C messier 16:56, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Seven Pandas 21:01, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Moroder 12:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose by C messier. --PtrQs 00:15, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --PtrQs (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2019 (UTC)