Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 07 2020

Consensual review edit

File:Tarforst_Wegekreuz_1670_(Detail_3).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Detail of a wayside shrine: relief of Pietà (1630) in Trier-Tarforst (Germany). --Palauenc05 08:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Sonya7iv 09:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

*  Oppose I disagree. What about the verticals? --Ermell 16:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

  •   Support--Ermell 20:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question What specifically are you seeing? -- Ikan Kekek 22:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment At the house in the background you can see that the picture is not vertically aligned.--Ermell 08:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe the ground shifted since 1670. Here's the context. I'm going to say   Support, good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 08:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good for me though the perspective perhaps could be a bit corrected. -- Spurzem 09:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose   Neutral Good lighting that highlights the relief without drowning the shadows. But I don't like the fact that the object is cut off at the top and the background is too sharp. A longer focal length and/or a wider aperture would have been better. And that the lack of perspective correction is simply accepted in this case is a bit surprising, since here on QIC it usually leads to decline even in action shots. --Smial 09:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I've corrected the verticals. But please look again: "the background is too sharp" - I cant see this. The main motif is crisp sharp. And "that the object is cut off at the top" is natural, as this is a detail shot. --Palauenc05 12:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
For the records: changed vote to neutral because the technical issue is solved, but I'm still not convinced about the composition, but will not decline because of that matter of taste only. I only add to this so that no one might possibly accuse me of "double standards" at some point in the future..--Smial 10:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good qualitty. --Yann 18:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 21:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Scanning_electron_microscope_-_UFCH_JH_(2020)_01.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Laboratory of electron microscopy (scanning electrone microscope) at J. Heyrovsky Institute of Physical Chemistry of the Czech Academy of Sciences; Prague, Czechia (2020) --T.Bednarz 00:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 00:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree, noise should be reduced. --Ermell 22:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Done Denoised. --T.Bednarz 02:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support IMO now OK for a QI. --Basotxerri 06:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 21:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

File:Castle_in_Březnice_(Czech_Republic).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Castle in Březnice (Czech Republic). --Adámoz 13:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment It's leaning right. --T.Bednarz 19:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Zcebeci 22:24, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I disagree. It's leaning to the right. --T.Bednarz 01:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Very clear lean. T.Bednarz, why do you not oppose? -- Ikan Kekek 07:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - @Ikan Kekek: I actually forgot to. --T.Bednarz 08:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - spire truncated, leaning, perspective distortion. --Isiwal 21:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others.--Peulle 23:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Seven Pandas 21:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)