Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 01 2020

Consensual review edit

File:Ναός_Αγίου_Νικολάου,_Μαργαρίτες_2065.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The church of Saint Nicholaus, Margarites, Crete. --C messier 19:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Bad composition and balance of white --Andrew J.Kurbiko 00:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would like more opinions. The location of the church in village doesn't allow for a frontal view. WB can be fixed but I'm sure towards how it is off. It is an afternoon photo. --C messier 11:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I support if you clone the power line and object on the upper right side --Moroder 08:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good composition and capture. This rating is without prejudice to any further discussions and edits may be made in regard to white balance, but it looks good to me. -- Ikan Kekek 08:03, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Neutral for now per Moroder (feel free to ping me, once the suggested improvements are done). --MB-one 10:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support If you clone out the power lines, you must also clone out all shadows of them. What an absurd demand! The lines are there, after all. Besides: If the photographer explicitly states that there was no better place to set up the camera, I'll believe him. For my personal taste, the rectification of the perspective seems a little exaggerated, even if it looks geometrically correct. There are also minimal residues of CA in some places. The shot is technically not absolutely perfect overall, but in my opinion good enough. -- Smial 12:22, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. Yes, would be better (and probably not difficult too) to clone out the power line and the small piece of a roof, but hey, it's not an FP nomination... --A.Savin 14:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per A.Savin --Sandro Halank 21:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 07:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

File:20150415_P-8_Poseidon_Tinker_AFB-6.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination A US Navy P-8 Poseidon on approach at Tinker AFB in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on April 15, 2015. --Balon Greyjoy 06:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
    Sky needs denoising. Otherwise good. --MB-one 15:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
      Oppose   Not done after a week --MB-one 10:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
      Support Good for me, please discuss -- Spurzem 18:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too noisy for QI, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 08:01, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose   chromatic aberrations.--Peulle 10:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle --Sandro Halank (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 07:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

File:Isla de Corbera, Santander, España, 2019-08-15, DD 68 orig.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Diver in Corbera Island, Santander, Spain --Poco a poco 14:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality --Fitindia 14:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Noisy, nothing is sharp. --Kallerna 19:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please, teach me then to get sharp photos underwater Kallerna, your comment is nothing but unrespectful --Poco a poco 21:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The focus should be on the diver, but is unfortunately on the bubbles in the foreground, which is very distracting. --MB-one 10:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Full   Support This is not a portrait of the diver and I think both the idea behind the photo and its creative realization are very successful. --Smial 15:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support In my opinion what are the most important aspects of a good photo are composition and light. This has it all --Moroder 15:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Yes, it is a very good composition. In combination with very good lighting it gives a great scene. But as the image was nominated as "Diver in Corbera Island [...]" it suggests being about the diver. So the diver should be in focus, which he is not. In addition the islands rocks are not sharp. That's why I think this a beautiful image but not meeting the criteria for QI. --Augustgeyler 22:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support For me it is definitely a great photo! --KaiBorgeest 21:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)--
  •   Support per others.--Ermell 10:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak support on the one hand per MB-one, the focus should be on the diver, but on the other hand per Moroder, most important aspects of a good photo are composition and light; weak support because it's a good picture, this ist not FP, it's QI and this is imho a QI --Sandro Halank 21:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 09:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

File:La_Boisserie_(4).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination La Boisserie in Colombey-les-Deux-Églises (Haute-Marne, France). --Gzen92 09:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Moroder 03:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose It is a well composed image and the author improved it by processing. But too much highlights between trees and sky are simply burned. In addition sharpness is too low. --Augustgeyler 15:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Burnt sky. --A.Savin 15:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Burnt clouds. --C messier 11:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --MB-one 10:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Burnt sky, sharpness of both sides clearly lower, left side leaning out Poco a poco 17:49, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 17:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)