Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 04 2019

Consensual review edit

File:2019_Kościół_Wniebowzięcia_NMP_i_św._Jana_w_Henrykowie_1.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Church of St. Mary in Henryków 1 --Jacek Halicki 07:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment The crop at the right is random and the tree leafs disturb the top of the monument on the left --Moroder 17:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support good enough for me. --EV Raudtee 16:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - OK for QI, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 07:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Ich erinnere mich an eine Zeit, in der Bilder einen Vordergrund haben mussten, um ihnen eine Tiefe zu geben. -- Spurzem 09:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 21:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Cappella_del_Santissimo_Sacramento_Fede_2_Santa_Agata_Brescia.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Statue of Faith in the Santissimo Sacramento chapel in Brescia --Moroder 08:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Steindy 17:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Perspective correction: it would be easy to straighten the verticals. --Palauenc05 06:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Palauenc05: Some verticals were already corrected and this is not an architectural photo but a statue which would incur in a deformation with further correction --Moroder 10:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Of course that niche is an architectural element that should be straightened. Look at this, is that statue deformed? --Palauenc05 11:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment It's not the same statue and probably not at the same level. --Moroder 18:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now. The perspective correction should be possible without deforming the statue. -- Spurzem 10:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Seven Pandas 21:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

File:WRJCH_2018-08-11_JM2x_Semi_CD_(Martin_Rulsch)_68.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Junior Men's Double Sculls at 2018 World Rowing Junior Championships. Patrick and Rory Plunket.. By User:DerHexer --Andrew J.Kurbiko 00:34, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Sorry! Photographing athletes from the back is never a good idea. --Steindy 13:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I like it --Podzemnik 03:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support In rowing it makes sense as it shows technical details that you only see from this perspective. --Palauenc05 06:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Commons needs images of athletes from the back too. Sometimes it works very well.--Peulle 07:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Wenn ich das Boot von vorn fotografiere, geht es wohl nicht anders. Oder sehe ich das falsch? -- Spurzem 07:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very sharp, good lighting. I think the athletes are probably sitting the wrong way around in their boat? --Smial 09:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment That's the fate of oarsmen, they never see where they are going. ;-) --Palauenc05 14:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I have always been amazed how the rowers keep their direction and do not collide at competitions. -- Spurzem 22:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  Comment If the picture is so good, then it really surprised me, why within 3 1/2 days not any review was made. Also, the statement for me as a sports photographer is completely new, that the backside of athletes is interesting, but I take note of the votes and apologize that I had voted with contra. --Steindy 22:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Why, for example, should I not take an image of a racing car from behind and think that it is good? -- Spurzem 00:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
@Steindy I'd like to ask you to be more considerate what you're writing here. The fact that you think that you've taken more photos than somebody else doesn't give you more votes or doesn't mean that you're right. Please treat other users and their opinions with respect. Only that way you'll earn theirs. Thanks. --Podzemnik 04:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 07:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 21:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Santa_Maria_dei_Miracoli_volta_della_cupola_Brescia.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Santa Maria dei Miracoli church in Brescia. --Moroder 10:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose overexposed windows, chromatic noise. --Steindy 16:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree, irrelevant --Moroder 10:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Perfectly fine picture to me. --Podzemnik 04:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Podzemnik 04:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Volkswagen_up!_GTI_IMG_1988.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Volkswagen up! GTI in Stuttgart, Germany. --Alexander-93 18:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Sharp enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 19:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I do not understand why you cut the photos so close. A good picture also includes some environment. --Steindy 01:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Lack of sharpness. --EV Raudtee 16:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 08:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Appeal_to_the_Great_Spirit,_Boston_MFA_-_IMG_3430.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Appeal to the Great Spirit, Boston, Mass. U.S. By User:Daderot --Another Believer 02:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
      Support Good quality. --Axel Tschentscher 05:59, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    This image would benefit from adding more sky space above the statue, as well as a little more of the base. Is there any more available? --GRDN711 17:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
      Oppose Too small sky. --Steindy 16:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose some hot pixels, sharpness not good. --EV Raudtee 16:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 08:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Tulum-Yucatan-Mexico0135.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Maya city of Tulúm in the Yucatan Peninsula, México --Poco a poco 12:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment CA at the right side of the tower should be removed. --Ermell 18:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done --Poco a poco 20:04, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Main subject looks too soft even in full screen. --Bobulous 17:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree. I think it´s good enough for QI --Ermell 07:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose unfortunate bottom crop, insufficient sharpness at right. --EV Raudtee 13:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Yeah, not sharp enough for QI, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 18:23, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough for this resolution.--Peulle 20:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Moroder 21:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Seven Pandas 21:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Mannersdorf_Rochusberg_33.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Objekt auf dem Rochusberg in Mannersdorf an der March (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 05:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
      Oppose Patterns in the sky. Sorry. --Ermell 07:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
      Done
    Edited with other software and new version uploaded. --Manfred Kuzel 08:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The sky looks OK now but the house is tilted, isn't it?--Peulle 11:44, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done Thank you, perspective corr. --Manfred Kuzel 06:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • But only on the left side. On the right side it's leaning. --Steindy 21:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done Perspektive neuerlich korr. --Manfred Kuzel 07:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support o.k. now.--Ermell 18:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Okay now, good quality. --Steindy 22:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Milseburg 12:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)