Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 26 2020

Consensual review edit

File:Canberra_(AU),_Albert_Hall_--_2019_--_1739.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Albert Hall, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia --XRay 04:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion   Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 04:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
      Oppose I disagree. Overlight on the sky. --Streetdeck 06:23, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
      Info The light of the clouds is around 99% (as shown in the histogram) and the histogram isn't cutted at the light side. So it's not overexposed. The building facade is the shadow side and the sky is bright, yes. A bright sky isn't unusal. IMO the brightness is OK. -- XRay 09:22, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
      Support - Bright but not overexposed. -- Ikan Kekek 11:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 13:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Jerusalem_-_20190205-DSC_0816.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Photograph of flag of Israel in Jerusalem. By User:Ilya Varlamov --Andrew J.Kurbiko 08:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. -- 14:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overexposed reflection --Cvmontuy 18:26, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support This is one of the (rare) cases where overexposing seems valid to me: I assume the photographer wanted to show the lightness and brightness of a flag fluttering in the wind and the sunshine, and IMHO he has achieved this goal. --Aristeas 08:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support As above. Greetings --Dirtsc 11:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 13:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

File:MasjidZahir.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The Zahir Mosque (Masjid Zahir) in Alor Setar, Kota Setar, Kedah, Malaysia. (by User:MosheA) --D-Kuru 23:12, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline   Oppose It needs a perspective correction --Michielverbeek 23:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
      Support Good quality. --Chenspec 20:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
    To CR please --Michielverbeek 21:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Should have at least a slight perspective correction. Greetings --Dirtsc 11:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Dirtsc --Cvmontuy 12:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I agree with the others. MosheA, please have a go at correcting the perspective so that the mosque doesn't lean in going up on both sides. -- Ikan Kekek 16:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Seven Pandas 13:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Holocaust History Museum, Yad Vashem - Hall of Names - 20190206-DSC 1303.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Holocaust History Museum, Yad Vashem. By User:Ilya Varlamov --Andrew J.Kurbiko 08:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment As noisy as the other one. --Ermell 13:13, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Chenspec 20:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. --Ermell 21:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I think that for an image this sharp, the level of noise is acceptable since it's an indoor shot in a not very well lit room. The file name, though, needs to be a bit better. "Jerusalem" is just too general.--Peulle 09:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment A good point! Because the file name was really very general, I have renamed the file right now. I hope it’s better now. --Aristeas 08:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support--Peulle 22:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Well done, and the noise level is acceptable for an indoor photo. --Aristeas 08:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 13:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

File:VWGacelMardelPlata.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination VW Gacel parked in Mar del Plata, Argentina --Ezarate 22:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --MB-one 17:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree Though there are no clipping highlights the image has large bright areas without any detail. In bright sunshine there should be some bright reflections, but it's all dull and grey. --Smial 22:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Smial --Cvmontuy 12:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  •    Comment @Smial:  @Cvmontuy:  see now, please Ezarate 23:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
I have changed my opinion after your last edition --Cvmontuy 00:44, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 13:54, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Germasogeia_Reservoir'_spillway_23.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Germasogeia Reservoir' spillway. --Xaris333 13:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality. --Seven Pandas 13:13, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
      Oppose Middle part is OK but other parts - especially the right side - is quite blurry. Also it seems to be tilted. Please discuss --Podzemnik 20:32, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Podzemnik. Probably heavily decentered lens, not fixable in my opinion. --Smial 10:14, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. In addition, there are CAs (e.g. at the top of the wall in the background) and artefacts (e.g. the brown rectangles at the leftmost lamp post). --Aristeas 08:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Seven Pandas 13:53, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Sunset,_Zadar_(P1080779).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Sunset in Zadar, Croatia --MB-one 21:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
      Support Good quality. --Seven Pandas 23:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree that this is a QI - as soon as the two dust spots will be deleted (see annotations). --PtrQs 23:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
    •   Support I'll remove my annotations. --PtrQs 20:10, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question - Did you change the status to Discuss, or did the bot do that? -- Ikan Kekek 07:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  Comment As I wanted to prevent the promotion without correcting the dust spots, I changed it to discuss and added my reasons. Just by the book. --PtrQs 23:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
I think you originally didn't vote. That's what confused me. -- Ikan Kekek 01:56, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
  Done removed dustspots. --MB-one 13:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell 20:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek 16:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 13:32, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Countercurrent_Gas_Centrifuge.svg edit

 

  • Nomination Simplified diagram of a gas centrifuge used for uranium isotope separation --undefined 11:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Is a SVG diagram is suitable for QI status? -- 12:00, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment The guidelines say that the requirement for resolution does not apply to SVG files. It does not say there that they are not allowed in general --D-Kuru 19:06
  •   Support I do not understand why this image was put in the consensual review, but to get things going, I support it. This SVG looks fine to me. --Aristeas 07:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support well done vector graphic. --MB-one 08:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 13:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)