Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 15 2022
-
- Nomination View of Wurdach, Köttmannsdorf, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 03:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion
Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 04:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Woodpile of logs in Wurdach, Köttmannsdorf, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 03:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 04:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Adolphe Belem, player of Floridsdorfer AC. --Steindy 00:03, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 04:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination timber-framed barn in Winzenhohl --KaiBorgeest 23:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 23:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination mv Sara Borchard arriving at Dublin just after sunset, 12 January 2022 --Niels Johannes 21:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 22:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination The Trabant 601 S from the front. --PantheraLeo1359531 15:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 16:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Busto del Abate Juan Ignacio Medina. Santiago.Chile. --Rjcastillo 15:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Good enough quality, in my opinion, but your file description should mention where this sculpture is. -- Ikan Kekek 16:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Done thanks for your review --Rjcastillo 17:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC) Support Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek 22:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination The Ludwig street in Hof, Germany. --PantheraLeo1359531 15:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 15:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Nomination Mount Pegherolo summit, Italy. --Mænsard vokser 12:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality. --Steindy 14:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Summit cross on Monte Secco Brembano, Italy. --Mænsard vokser 12:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality. --Steindy 14:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination View from summit Pizzo Ruscada in Switzerland. --Mænsard vokser 12:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Support I love it! Very colourful! --Dimitrijemat 13:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Nomination Suzdal --Alexxx1979 09:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality, but I would chose for a large bottom crop and a small crop at the right --Michielverbeek 12:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Novocherkassk. Ascension Cathedral --Alexxx1979 09:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality. --Lmbuga 12:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Nomination Left valve of a Rayed Artemis, Dosinia exoleta var. ponderosa --Llez 06:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 06:26, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Coast of Nisyros island. Greece --Ввласенко 05:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 05:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Hattem, The House of Love. Eagle corner 3.
--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC) - Promotion Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 05:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Nomination Hattem, The House of Love. Eagle corner 3.
-
- Nomination View of Kamnik–Savinja Alps seen from Zgornji Brnik, Upper Carniola, Slovenia. --Tournasol7 04:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 05:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Soča river in the Municipality of Kobarid, Goriška, Slovenia. --Tournasol7 04:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 05:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Velika korita Soče in Soča in the Municipality of Bovec, Goriška, Slovenia. --Tournasol7 04:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:34, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
-
-
- Nomination General purpose PCB for 16 Pin DIPI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Suyash.dwivedi 18:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Decline
Oppose Sorry! Significant blurring in the lower area. --Steindy 15:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination PCB Mount dual POT (variable resistance) with KnobI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Suyash.dwivedi 18:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Decline Oppose Sorry! Significant blurring in the lower area. --Steindy 15:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Soldering Iron Stand made with China clayThis file has been extracted from another fileI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Suyash.dwivedi 18:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality. --Steindy 15:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Visitors at Wikipedia stall , 11th World Hindi Conference 2018, MauritiusI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: --Suyash.dwivedi 18:15, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality. --Velvet 08:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
-
-
- Nomination Nanjing Jiajiang Bridge --西安兵马俑 12:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Needs a perspective correction. --Ermell 14:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Seems to have some persective distortion with the buildings in the back. --Tomer T 15:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Oppose Perspective.\ --Tomer T 19:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC) - Decline {{{2}}}
- Nomination Nanjing Jiajiang Bridge --西安兵马俑 12:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Nomination Classical mansion, Rue Marx Dormoy 75 & 77, Seclin, France --Velvet 08:42, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality. --N. Johannes 21:33, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Shop at the corner of Cornhill and Fleet Streets, Annapolis, Maryland --Acroterion 02:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Imehling 09:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Equestrian statue of Pedro de Valdivia, located in the Plaza de Armas in the city of Santiago, Chile. --Rjcastillo 01:34, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Good quality. --Imehling 09:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Nomination Russian postal card of I.P. Dritriev in Mosfilm cinema «Behind a Counter in a Supermarket» (by Gone Postal) --Adamant1 10:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality.--Lmbuga 16:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Russian postal card of P.P. Kadochnikov in Mosfilm cinema «Story of a real human» (by Gone Postal) --Adamant1 10:15, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Support Good quality.--Lmbuga 16:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
-
- Nomination Florence - Fontana del Nettuno --Imehling 09:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion
Small pink spot at the top left should be fixed. --Ermell 21:35, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Done Thanks. I wonder what it is and how it got there. --Imehling 08:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC) Support Good quality. --Ermell 08:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
-
-
- Nomination View of San Gimignano / Toscana --Imehling 15:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Please remove those spots in the sky, it might also be birds but I don't think so --Michielverbeek 18:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC) Done Thanks. I've removed the spots. --Imehling 09:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
It's ok now. Sorry about my late response --Michielverbeek 08:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
-
-
- Nomination: Spergularia purpurea in Lozoya (Madrid, Spain). --Balles2601 19:29, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Review needed
.jpg)
_arriving_at_Dublin.jpg)
.jpg)
_01.jpg)
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_juvenile.jpg){kind=link}
Consensual review edit
File:Paris_Air_Show_2019,_Le_Bourget_(SIAE0615).jpg edit
.jpg)
- Nomination NH90 on flying display at Paris Air Show 2019 --MB-one 21:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Oppose too unsharp to me. --Tomer T 21:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. --MB-one 19:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC) - Support Some motion blur but the rest looks ok to me. --Imehling 09:07, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Blurring at the tips of the rotor blades is expected. Rest is sharp. --Tagooty 09:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → 
Promoted --Peulle 18:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Promoted --Peulle 18:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)File:Florence_-_Uffizi_from_Arno.jpg edit
- Nomination Florence - Uffizi from Arno --Imehling 09:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Oppose Looks almost good but the rightmost building is significantly out of focus. --VileGecko 11:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Come on, this is a little bit over the top. --Imehling 12:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC) - Support Sharp enough. -- Ikan Kekek 06:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support QI --Lmbuga 12:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Good enough. --Steindy 13:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted --Peulle 18:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Promoted --Peulle 18:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)File:2007-07-14_Cantharellus_cibarius.jpg edit
- Nomination Chanterelle (Cantharellus cibarius). By User:Ak ccm --Tomer T 09:06, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion Oppose Not sharp enough --VileGecko 11:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Looks sharp enough to me. --Imehling 15:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Sufficiently sharp. --Tagooty 09:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Sharp enough IMO--Lmbuga 12:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Looks good enough to me. --Steindy 13:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted --Peulle 18:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Promoted --Peulle 18:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)File:EBACE_2019,_Le_Grand-Saconnex_(EB190506).jpg edit
.jpg)
- Nomination Washroom aboard a Gulfstream G650ER at EBACE 2019, Palexpo, Switzerland --MB-one 21:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Decline Support Good enough to me. --Tomer T 07:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC) Oppose I stand to be corrected, but doesn't the lower part of the photo have a lot of CA? -- Ikan Kekek 21:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Focus is on the people outside, washbasin etc are blurred. CA in lower part. --Tagooty 09:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → 
Declined --Peulle 18:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Declined --Peulle 18:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)File:SC_Wiener_Neustadt_vs._Floridsdorfer_AC_2018-05-04_(005).jpg edit
.jpg)
- Nomination Mario Handl, manager of Floridsdorfer AC. --Steindy 00:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Decline
- Oppose This is the exact same image as File:SC Wiener Neustadt vs. Floridsdorfer AC 2018-05-04 (004).jpg --Adamant1 02:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- It's sad when you can't see the differences between the pictures. The main thing is to make a stupid comment. If the photos were the same, I wouldn't have been able to upload them at all. Let's see what other users say. --Steindy 12:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Comment @Adamant1: Thank you also for your delition request! --Steindy 12:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Comment The image itself appears to be in good order, and there is a subtle difference to the person's arm between the two photos in question. (The way to see this easily is open both photos in different tabs and click quickly back and forth between them, effectively making it look like a film where the arm is moving up and down). However, as some of my images have been declined in the past for this very reason (that they were too similar to another photo), I will not vote for this one for the same reason. I take it that the point is to avoid photographers' holding down the continuous shot button on their cameras and submitting all the photos, thereby flooding QIC with very similar shots. As for Steindy's response, I note that he resorts to his customary passive aggressive responses; this does not motivate me to review his photos either.--Peulle 08:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment @Peulle: "The image itself appears to be in good order ... this does not motivate me to review his photos either". Then why waste your valuable time and deal with my photos? By the way: When I look at your QIs, I see several similar photos. Many should therefore not have been rejected.--Steindy 13:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment For good reasons, I too have been holding back on reviews of Steindy's photos for a long time and only participate in very rare exceptional cases. However, I consider the above deletion request unacceptable. If we here on QIC want to prohibit the nomination of very similar pictures, we need a dedicated rule for this with very detailed regulations, which similarity would still be allowed and which not. I think this is unfeasible and also not purposeful. --Smial 13:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
- Oppose I see it's not quite a duplicate, but nonetheless IMO there's no reason to promote (& upload) both. --A.Savin 14:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined --Peulle 18:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Declined --Peulle 18:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)File:Florence_Baptistery_-_South_Door_-_John_Evangelist.jpg edit
- Nomination Florence Baptistery - South Door - St. John Evangelist --Imehling 15:53, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion
- Support Good quality. --Steindy 18:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Not sharp enough; the photo better be cut to include the outer floral frame completely or to leave it out. --VileGecko 10:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support main topic seems sharp enough. Tomer T 09:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Yes, sharp enough. -- Ikan Kekek 21:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted --Steindy 14:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Promoted --Steindy 14:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)File:001_2013_08_29_Dorf.jpg edit
- Nomination View of Nothweiler from Château de Fleckenstein
--F. Riedelio 08:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC) - Promotion
- Support Good quality. --Tomer T 11:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
* CA should be removed and tilting fixed --Ermell 10:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Oppose
- New version Thanks for the review. --F. Riedelio 13:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Better now if you could add some more sharpness. --Ermell 19:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- New version Sharpness and white balance improved. --F. Riedelio 08:12, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Good now. Thank you.--Ermell 17:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted --Steindy 14:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Promoted --Steindy 14:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)File:20210814_Katholisches_Schulhaus_Mainzweiler_Ottweiler.jpg edit
- Nomination The catholic school building in Ottweiler-Mainzweiler. --DavidJRasp 16:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion
- Comment The photo would benefit from adding a touch of sharpness and contrast, looks like there is some minor chromatic aberration which can also be removed. --VileGecko 21:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Question Why is this one here at CR? Were there different opinions?--Peulle (talk) 08:47, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Sorry, wrong function was used, the photo can be safely removed from the CR. --VileGecko (talk) 08:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Well, it's here now, so we need a decision. Is it a decline or a support?--Peulle 10:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment If the aforementioned adjustments are performed I'd be willing to promote the photo. --VileGecko (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Done @VileGecko: Thanks for the review. I performed those edits now. --DavidJRasp 23:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Comment @DavidJRasp: The adjustments are good, thanks. However now with the increased contrast I can see several specks of dust in the sky - 3 in the upper left corner near the edge, 1 to the left from the middle of the tower's roof, 1 to the right from the rooster windvane and 1 more even further right and a bit higher near the edge of the tree crown. Those should also be patched out, especially the ones near the left edge of the photo. --VileGecko 07:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Done @VileGecko: Thanks again! I hope I didn't miss anything this time. --DavidJRasp 13:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Alright, everything's good now. --VileGecko 13:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted --Peulle 09:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Promoted --Peulle 09:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)File:Austria_national_under-21_football_team_-_Teamcamp_June_2017_(137).jpg edit
.jpg)
- Nomination Willi Ruttensteiner, sportdirektor of the ÖFB. --Steindy 00:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion
- Support Good quality. --Ermell 09:10, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Disrespectful pic. --A.Savin 14:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Strange comment. What's disrespectful about Ruttensteiner grabbing his nose? By the way, he got the photo from me and didn't complain about it. --Steindy 16:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support good quality. Tomer T 11:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support This is rather funny than disrespectful. --Imehling 14:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support I definitely get A.Savin's point; images that depict people in a bad light can be considered demeaning and should not be posted online at all, certainly not on Commons. This one, however, seems OK in that it doesn't make Mr. Ruttensteiner look bad (it would have been different if he had, for instance, been picking his nose at the time), and especially if he himself doesn't mind (although this may be difficult to prove). --Peulle 08:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support A lively snapshot in good quality in which I find nothing disrespectful. There are a few shots of a stage performer with a big booger in his nose in my picture library. I didn't notice it in the viewfinder when I took the pictures - and of course I never uploaded them. Modern digital cameras often show details that you don't really want to see... --Smial 13:42, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek 02:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted --Steindy 14:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Promoted --Steindy 14:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)File:Ermita_de_Nuestra_Señora_del_Pilar_in_Callosa_de_Segura,_Alicante,_Spain,_2022_January.jpg edit
- Nomination Ermita de Nuestra Señora del Pilar in Callosa de Segura, Spain --Ximonic 11:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion
- Support Good quality. --Mosbatho 12:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose The building looks distorted. With a 16mm lens, a more frontal view would work. --Tagooty 06:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Good quality. --Steindy 16:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted --Steindy 14:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Promoted --Steindy 14:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)File:Wild_boar_(Sus_scrofa_vittatus)_juvenile.jpg edit
_juvenile.jpg)
- Nomination Wild boar (Sus scrofa vittatus) juvenile --Charlesjsharp 23:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion
- Support Good quality. --Steindy 00:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose Nice pose, but not sharp overall. --Tagooty 06:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support good enough quality. Tomer T 11:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Good pose and colours. Sharpness may be a bit imperfect but this is not a photo of a porcelain figurine. --VileGecko (talk) 09:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Somewhat soft, but good enough to be printed to A4 size or even larger. Nice lighting, colours appear natural. --Smial 08:58, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Good quality. --Fischer.H 18:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted --Steindy 13:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Promoted --Steindy 13:56, 13 February 2022 (UTC)File:Rattelsdorf_Hochwasser-20220106-RM-153332.jpg edit
- Nomination Flood 2022 near Rattelsdorf --Ermell 10:27, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Promotion
- Comment I suggest, lighten up the very dark parts. --Milseburg 13:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment Gave it a try but I don´t think it is much better. Actually not much to see in that part of the picture. Thanks for the review. --Ermell 23:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment I tried it in Photoshop. I lightened up only the shadows of the trees on the other shore only 10%. That's enough I think. --Milseburg 14:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Comment The image is too good for a contra and also for the archive or the category of undecided candidates. So more opinions please. --Milseburg 10:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support good enough to me. Tomer T 11:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
- Support Good composition and moody lighting. --Tagooty 03:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted --Steindy 13:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Promoted --Steindy 13:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)