Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 13 2021

Consensual review edit

File:Sant'Agata_in_Trastevere_(1).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Sant'Agata in Trastevere church in Rome, Lazio, Italy. (By Krzysztof Golik) --Sebring12Hrs 17:30, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Slightly tilted on the left. --Remontees 21:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support At 100% zoom, I do not find any tilt. Good quality image. --Tagooty 02:40, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support good quality --George Chernilevsky 05:27, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support good quality --Knopik-som 05:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek 07:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 14:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Palazzo_Braschi_in_Rome.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Palazzo Braschi in Rome (by Tournasol7)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose The shadow in the foreground should be cropped. --F. Riedelio 09:34, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  Comment For @F. Riedelio: I disagree. --Sebring12Hrs 15:16, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't understand why this is in Consensual Review. I don't see any votes. -- Ikan Kekek 05:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
It's me, because I think a reviewed image must have several votes. --Sebring12Hrs 12:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
What? You don't think a single vote is sufficient? If you were right, every nomination on this page would have to go to CR, making the page unusable. And right now, it has no votes. How does moving it here help? Ikan Kekek 20:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Well, I don’t understand why this is in Consensual review, too, but now it is and therefore we have to vote on it. ;–) I would prefer it without the cars and the guy in red, but they hide only a very small part of the façade, and the shadow in the foreground only takes a small part of the photo, therefore good quality for me. --Aristeas (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Knopik-som 05:38, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. F. Riedelio's oppose vote wasn't there during the previous discussion. -- Ikan Kekek 07:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 14:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

File:315_0517_PL-SZDS_Ostrava-Svinov.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Freight train in Ostrava-Svinov station, Czech Republic --Cmelak770 17:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Review
      OpposeIMO sharp enough, but a lot of JPEG artifacts. Geo location missing too. --XRay 06:26, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
      New version --Cmelak770 21:09, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
    There isn't a new version. --XRay 06:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
      Support Good quality. --Remontees 22:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
      Comment @Remontees: You can't overrule the vote of other people. There is still an issue to do. --XRay 07:58, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
      Support Good quality. --Knopik-som 05:52, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
      Oppose Per XRay. Nefronus 11:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per XRay --Tagooty 16:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't see any JPG artifacts in the 1:1 view, only at high magnification (Over 400%). What looks a bit like artifacts could be caused by heat flare. -- Smial 13:13, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 14:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)