Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 09 2023

Consensual review edit

File:Dülmen,_Kirchspiel,_ehem._Sondermunitionslager_Visbeck,_Wachgebäude_--_2020_--_2447.jpg edit

 

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 09:30, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:20210412_Bürgerpark_Saarbrücken.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination View from the Bürgerpark Saarbrücken to a building with a tower crane above it --FlocciNivis 10:01, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 21:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The elements of good composition are missing in this pic. --Mister rf 17:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Mister rf --GRDN711 20:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 02:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Vista_panrámica_Playa_Las_Brisas,_Los_Vilos,_Región_de_Coquimbo.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Panoramic view Las Brisas Beach, Los Vilos, Coquimbo Region. --Rjcastillo 17:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 18:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Stitching errors and dust spots should be fixed. --Ermell 19:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
    •   Done Thanks. --Rjcastillo 21:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
      •   Comment Stitching errors are still visible. Sorry. --Ermell 22:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I see the same things as Ermell. This is a nice photo and worth fixing. -- Ikan Kekek 00:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
    •   CommentIn the first photo, the one on the left side, the horizon line is not straight. That's why the photo stitching is not done correctly. --Mister rf 09:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 09:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Puerto_Vallarta,_March_2023_-_119.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Tritón y Sirena, Puerto Vallarta --Another Believer 03:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 03:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Please, check the horizonthal line. --Tournasol7 05:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good to me. Seems like a natural perspective. -- Ikan Kekek 00:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 09:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Galería_Uffizi,_Florencia,_Italia,_2022-09-18,_DD_36.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Sant'Ambrogio Altarpiece by Sando Botticelli, Uffizi Gallery, Florence, Italy --Poco a poco 16:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 21:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think the light reflection on the upper left part is covering parts of the painting and therefore the image is not meeting QI standards. --Augustgeyler 23:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose per August. I also think it could be a bit sharper. -- Ikan Kekek 00:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment The light reflections are a bit annoying, but they are probably unavoidable. Considering the high image resolution, the image sharpness is also completely acceptable. This is not a perfect reproduction under studio conditions, but it should realistically represent the situation on location, in any case I don't see any really noteworthy mistakes in the photographer's workmanship. If you bring your own lighting and are allowed to use it, it goes better, of course. --Smial 14:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 09:25, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Galería_Uffizi,_Florencia,_Italia,_2022-09-18,_DD_24.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Presentation of Jesus at the Temple by Ambrogio Lorenzetti, Uffizi Gallery, Florence, Italy --Poco a poco 16:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 21:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think the light reflection on the upper part is covering parts of the painting and therefore the image is not meeting QI standards. --Augustgeyler 23:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per August. A lot of it is lovely. Maybe there could be a way to dial back the brightest highlights, but I'd have to see the results. -- Ikan Kekek 00:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
  • weak   Support.   Comment I think the light reflections as such are unavoidable with this motif. I would have exposed the photo a little darker overall to avoid clippng in the reflections, and then carefully lightened the areas that were too dark. However, the actual clipping area is really very small, image sharpness and colors seem good to me. --Smial 13:56, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 09:24, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Luxembourg_Cents_–_Restau_Centser_Roud_Haus.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Restaurant in Luxembourg City. --Cayambe 17:49, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment Needs a slight rotation ccw. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 21:15, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
    •   Comment Sorry, but all the verticals appear vertical to me. Could there be a confusion with one other image here? --Cayambe 21:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
      •   Oppose I'm talking about horizontals and perspective, check the difference of the space between the house and the frame on both the left and right bottom, at left bottom there is more space with the frame than right bottom. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 00:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
        •   Comment Thank you Fabian for the review. I understand what you are saying. Nonetheless, I wish to hear other opinions. Cheers, --Cayambe 19:27, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support The verticals are perfect. The only thing is, that it was not taken 100 % from the front. But that's a very minor issue. --August Geyler (talk) 20:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality --Milseburg 14:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good to me. -- Ikan Kekek 00:10, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. I do not see any problems here. --LexKurochkin 18:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks like the street slopes a bit. Critics here may come from an optical illusion?--Der Angemeldete 14:01, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 18:44, 8 March 2023 (UTC)