Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 17 2023

Consensual review edit

File:Sunset_from_Ontario_Place_16.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Sunset from Ontario Place --Fabian Roudra Baroi 02:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 04:11, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The cluttered foreground. The other image is good. --Charlesjsharp 09:02, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support I like the foreground, it gives dethe image more space --Moroder 15:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support OK to me, and I agree with Moroder. -- Ikan Kekek 19:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Rohrweihenküken.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Chicks and egg of the marsh harrier in the nest --Stephan Sprinz 09:18, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --JoachimKohler-HB 09:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment yes but needs a right hand side crop --Charlesjsharp 11:21, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
    I cropped it a little --Stephan Sprinz 16:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
      Info This should go to CR, not reset to "Nomination". --Robert Flogaus-Faust 07:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Question Why? I don't see an opposing vote. Unless Charles voted against, it should have remained as "Promoted". -- Ikan Kekek 19:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support For the record, though I'd prefer more generous crops left and right, I think this is a good photo. -- Ikan Kekek 19:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Hellenbergtunnel,_Eppstein_(P1090545).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Hellenbergtunnel and BAB 3 between Eppstein und Niedernhausen --MB-one 13:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Purple tint, waxy trees - sorry --Grunpfnul 16:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Done adjusted WB, denoising and sharpening mask. Please have another look. --MB-one 10:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support --Moroder 15:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support --Sandro Halank 19:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Kakum_National_Park,_Jukwa_(P1100151).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Tropical rainforest in Kakum National Park --MB-one 13:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Strong CAs at the trees at the borders --Grunpfnul 16:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Done removed the CA. Thanks for the review. --MB-one 11:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment Some areas are blown. If they were only sky, I'd probably vote for this, but there are some disembodied leaves at the top a bit right of center. Is there any way you can recover the branches? -- Ikan Kekek 05:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:40, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

File:American_Eagle_Airplanes_03.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination American Eagle Airplanes (Embraer ERJ-145LR) --Fabian Roudra Baroi 02:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
      Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 03:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
      Oppose The plane as subject does not fill the frame sufficiently, It is also dull and a little soft because you are too far away. If you are going to make airplanes images one of your photographic priorities, suggest you pick a brighter day in future and consider investing in a longer focal length lens. To be useful, image description should include operator, plane model, plane registration number, location description (GPS coordinates are always good!). Here is an example of where you might go with this. --GRDN711 09:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not really sharp, too small depicted, lots of noise and/or sharpening artifacts. --Smial 11:19, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per GRDN711, although I would say you just need to get closer to the airport, rather than a longer focal length (300mm is more than enough). BigDom 05:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Sandro Halank 19:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Mike Peel 07:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

File:At_Paranapiacaba_2018_015.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination The remains of the train Estrella at Paranapiacaba, Brasil --Mike Peel 07:07, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 07:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose front of carriage not in focus --Charlesjsharp 09:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Grunpfnul 14:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough to me. -- Ikan Kekek 06:20, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support. A good image and a sad symbol for transience -- Spurzem 11:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for a QI --Jakubhal 18:43, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support The charm of decay. --Palauenc05 12:21, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose With Charlesjsharp. --August Geyler (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support good enough --Sandro Halank 19:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)