Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 13 2021

Consensual review edit

File:Path_to_Lysá_hora_2021_09.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Path to Lysá hora mountain in Moravian-Silesian Beskids --T.Bednarz 08:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
      Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 08:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
    I disagree - lot ot chromatic aberrations. --Granada 08:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment I see what Granada is seeing. Please fix them. -- Ikan Kekek 08:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good for me -- Spurzem 09:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Lot of chromatic aberration --MIGORMCZ 16:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Done @Granada and MIGORMCZ: New version uploaded. --T.Bednarz (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support It is good now --MIGORMCZ (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support now. -- Ikan Kekek 22:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 23:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Domplatz_8_in_Wetzlar.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Building at Domplatz 8 in Wetzlar, Hesse, Germany. --Tournasol7 08:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose I am sorry, but I don't think this is a QI of the building with the truck and all that people in front of it. Not your fault, though. --Poco a poco 13:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Quality is good enough. No problem with the people. --Ermell 16:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ermell. This is a market. The people are part of the composition. -- Ikan Kekek 06:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Perhaps the description of the image should be changed or supplemented, for it shows a market in front of the building. But the picture is by no means bad, in contrast to some photos by some other users, which are classified as quality images. -- Spurzem 15:35, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't understand this comments. The QI shall depict the building in the Domplatz 8 but instead this in the first place show a market. Come on guys --Poco a poco 21:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment It does show Domplatz 8. It also shows the market that's in front of it. What's the issue there? -- Ikan Kekek 00:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The QI requirement under Composition and Lighting is the following (I added the cursives/bold text): "The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed." What didn't I get here? I have always been consistent rejecting QIs with e.g. disturbing tourists in front of it. Poco a poco 08:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There are two subjects. -- Ikan Kekek 10:05, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • That's just your assumption. Neither the file name, nor the categories nor the description back that --Poco a poco 08:10, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • That's what I see. So maybe those should be changed, but the photo is IMO fine. Tournasol7, would you like to add the market to the categories and file description? -- Ikan Kekek 08:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  Done, Tournasol7 10:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ermell.--Moroder 03:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 23:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Nottawasaga_Bluffs_Conservation_Area.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Nottawasaga Bluffs Conservation Area, Ontario, Canada. --The Cosmonaut 04:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 04:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   OpposeWhere is the focus? Unsharp. --̈Kallerna 07:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think Kallerna's right. -- Ikan Kekek 08:51, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Kallerna --Trougnouf 16:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 23:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Palacio_del_Louvre-Paris344.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Caïn venant de tuer son frère Abel statue and Louvre Palace, Paris, France --Poco a poco 11:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 12:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Small, CA, unsharp, noisy, cluttered composition. --Kallerna 21:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Crop and sharpness should be better. --XRay 07:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)~
  •   Oppose Per others. Poor cropping. --T.Bednarz 10:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I feel the composition and also the cropping of the image is not so bad, the photo is informative and very nicely lit. Unfortunately, sharpness and other technical quality are not enough, they are below standard. --Smial 13:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm surprised by how strong the negative reaction is to this photo. I like the composition with the sculpture in front and think declining the photo because of a marginal disagreement about the right crop would be too nitpicky. The sharpness could be better, mostly on the right but also in the near shadowed area of the Louvre, but when I read all the votes above, I thought it would be terrible, and instead, I think it's kind of borderline. I'm wondering if the sharpness could be improved a bit, so I could give a supporting vote. -- Ikan Kekek 20:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan. Nice composition --Moroder 01:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for QI. --Aristeas 11:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Agree with Ikan and Moroder but would probably have cropped a bit differently although still QI for me --Scotch Mist 14:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 04:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good Quality --Fischer.H 09:19, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 23:22, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 23:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)