Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 30 2023

Consensual review edit

File:Le_Mans_Cathédrale_R01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Le Mans Cathédrale (by MJJR) --Sebring12Hrs 19:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --SHB2000 00:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Burnt lights at the windows and not really sharp --Uoaei1 04:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry: Blown-out highlights  . --F. Riedelio 08:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --BigDom 09:05, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

File:North_Carolina_-_Upper_Whitewater_Falls_02.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Upper Whitewater Falls, North Carolina-- P. Hughes) 20:39, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline   Good quality. --Palauenc05 10:57, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
      Oppose Not sure about this one. Detail seems low, trees look a bit overprocessed. --Tomer T 15:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree. It looks a little strange, and it's not a huge photo to compensate for that. -- Ikan Kekek 06:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan Kekek. --SHB2000 07:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice composition, but destructive noise reduction combined with oversharpening. --Smial 09:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --BigDom 06:42, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Suzuki_Swace_(LRM_20210814_100454).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Suzuki Swace --MB-one 09:54, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Unpleasant reflections due to very unfavorable incidence of light, as it often does not allow a quality image. Let's hear what others say. My opinion is   Oppose. -- Spurzem 11:40, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Spurzem. Also messy background. --Smial 11:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --BigDom 06:41, 29 June 2023 (UTC)