Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 30 2019

Consensual review edit

File:Hafezieh_001.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Hafezieh, Shiraz By User:Mohammad.Tarem --Hanooz 16:24, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Sorry! I do not think that QI is the right platform for artistically designed photos, but they did not succeed either. --Steindy 18:35, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree. Using an object to frame your subject is fairly standard photography (e.g. arch or window). The result might not be to one's taste here but I think still meets QI. --Colin 10:40, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me. The resolution is not huge but it's alright considering the conditions + it's nicely sharp. --Podzemnik 19:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like artistic, creative photos but find the fuzzy and backlit nature of this framing object detracts from the view of this Iranian monument. I want to see the monument, clear and unencumbered. --GRDN711 01:08, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me --Jakubhal 04:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 00:42, 30 September 2019 (UTC))

File:201_Dome_Mosque_10.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination 201 Dome Mosque. By User:Azimronnie --RockyMasum 16:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality --Michielverbeek 17:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry!   Oppose Some CAs on top of the towers. --Steindy 19:41, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
      Support I don't mind seeing bits of CA in 30 megapixels photo --Podzemnik 02:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
      Comment This image is not perfect but I love this composition --Michielverbeek 07:13, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose... but this kind of CA is easily fixable. The image is worth the effort. Could even be FP candidate, if fixed. --Smial 08:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose too much out of focus Seven Pandas 20:41, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Seven Pandas 00:41, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

File:L'_îlet_à_cabrit,_les_Saintes_02.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Terre de haut--Filo gèn' 04:26, 24 Septembre 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 04:44, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor smartphone image quality, lack of details --Uoaei1 15:27, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Uoaei1 --Tsungam 06:50, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Uoaei1 --Ermell 07:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose also per Uoaeil, it's a clear case.--Peulle 08:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Uoaei1 --Carschten 11:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose →   Declined   --Seven Pandas 00:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Grub_Kellergasse_Berggasse_23.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Objekt in der Kellergasse „Berggasse" in Grub (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 03:51, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lacks sharpness. --Ermell 07:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ermell.--Peulle 08:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ermell --Carschten 11:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Seven Pandas 00:40, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Destaques_da_Praia_de_Santa_Cruz.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Praia de Santa Cruz, Torres Vedras. By User:Dhcmatias --DarwIn 21:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. Can you note the coordinates please? --Steindy 23:39, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too bad only the foreground is sharp... --Till.niermann 06:59, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality, great photo. --SimonWaldherr 23:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality,--Fischer.H 17:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not a QI in full resolution. Coordinates still missing. --Milseburg 17:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others; many dustspots too. --A.Savin 12:14, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Overprocessed, dust. --Smial 12:45, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Beautiful photo, but not QI. Only foreground is sharp. The rock on the right is not and cropping it out would spoil the composition. --Jakubhal 13:09, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose →   Declined   -- Seven Pandas 00:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC))

File:Lake-Geneva.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Der Genfersee ist der grösste See sowohl Frankreichs als auch der Schweiz. Mittig im Bild befindet sich das Schloss Chillon --SimonWaldherr 17:03, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. May could be cut at the side to get rid of the bright areas where you don't see anything anyway --D-Kuru 19:57, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

*  Oppose Composition isn´t succeeded. I don´t think those blown out parts are corresponding with a QI. --Milseburg 13:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
*  Oppose per Milseburg. I would support if the blown parts were cropped - given the current width of 25,000 px this would still make a great panorama. --Till.niermann 18:55, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

  •   Comment changed as requested --SimonWaldherr 23:16, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Till.niermann 06:20, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Think there is no reason for opposimng any more. --Milseburg 14:25, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I do not like tube-like panoramic photos because hardly a correct illumination is not possible what is also proven in this photo. In addition, the sharpness of the excellent center against the edge decreases more and more. --Steindy 19:34, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 00:39, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

File:Panoramic_view,_ILA_2018,_Schönefeld_(1X7A5528-Pano).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination ILA 2018 Panoramic shot of the static display --MB-one 16:38, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Nice panorama with good quality --D-Kuru 18:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. In my opinion the composition is not succeeded here. Too much cut, unsharp or disturbing elements. --Milseburg 19:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support yes, and even if you crop the photo below by about 10 percent, it's still a QI. --Steindy 11:57, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks random to me, like the user just pressed a button. For QI panorama I'd like to see at least a little bit of composition. --Podzemnik 02:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Agree with others. --Kallerna 09:16, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Milseburg and Podzemnik. --A.Savin 12:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Seven Pandas 00:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)