Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 10 2020

Consensual review edit

File:Bad_Bentheim,_de_Pulverturm_bij_Burg_Bentheim_Dm_IMG_6757_2020-07-30_12.21.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Bad Bentheim Lower Saxony-Bentheim, the Pulverturm near Burg Bentheim --Michielverbeek 21:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Sorry, but image isn't sharp enough, there is a problem with focus and that can't be fixed. --Halavar 22:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't agree, IMO sharp enough for QI --Michielverbeek 06:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I must admit it looks a bit soft considering the distance and light available.--Peulle 10:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 11:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Tavola-desco_di_Pietro_Cascella_2.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Campo del Sole-Tuoro sul Trasimeno- Trasimeno Lake. Table-desk by Pietro Cascella surrounded by some cubic seats and surmounted by a solar symbol (1985) --PROPOLI87 10:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality: poor detail and sharpness, sorry. --Peulle 08:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough for QI. Please discuss. -- ~~~~
  •   Oppose Not a bad photo, but the technical quality is not high enough for QI. Also, no FoP in Italia.--ArildV 18:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - sharpness, also magenta CA on the left side of the structure furthest to the right. -- Ikan Kekek 12:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately the table is really stained and it is not due to photo editing. People also have Picnics on that table.PROPOLI87 14:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 14:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  Comment I'm talking about the sort of obelisk- or pillar-like structure, not the table. I don't believe someone stained the left side of it magenta. -- Ikan Kekek 14:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  Comment Ok, you're right, I hadn't seen! Decline as well! - But why can't I get my comments within the yellow line?!?PROPOLI87 14:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 14:25, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very well composed photo. But it has a very strong file compression.--Augustgeyler 12:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Augustgeyler. --Vincent60030 20:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 11:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Заповедник_Брянский_лес_(14).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Bison bonasus in Bryansk forest, Russia by Жиляев Евгений --Ludvig14 08:03, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion <
  •   Oppose good focus, but the lowest part of the main object is cut of. --Augustgeyler 09:36, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support I'd allow it, because the focus on the rest of the face is good. -- Ikan Kekek 05:14, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Palauenc05 09:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support idem Ikan Kekek--Celeda 13:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good for me -- Spurzem 14:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose bottom crop. --Smial 23:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose top and bottom crop. --Seven Pandas 11:36, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose top and bottom crop. Charlesjsharp 18:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose top and bottom crop. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 09:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan --Moroder 01:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good image, the clarity of the eye is excellent --Tagooty 16:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support It's sufficient. The focus of the head is really awesome! --Vincent60030 20:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 11:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

File:City_National_Bank_Building_--_Houston,_Texas.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination City National Bank Building -- Houston, Texas -- Jim Evans 00:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Sorry, the image is not sharp and it is leaning in. --XRay 03:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support IMO OK now. Thank you. --XRay 07:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Looks sharp to me & if you don't have some spread at the bottom of a building this tall it creates the illusion the top is too large. --Jim Evans 10:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now. A little soft at the top. I feel like that probably can't be fixed, but I could well be wrong, so by all means give it a shot. -- Ikan Kekek 06:23, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Ikan - Does this address your comment? -- Jim Evans 16:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment It's enough of an improvement for me to strike my opposing vote. -- Ikan Kekek 01:08, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I've made the sides vertical as suggested -- Jim Evans 16:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support IMHO it’s OK now. --Aristeas 08:45, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support --Moroder 01:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'd like to support this, but now the verticals are overcompensated. Just some pixels, but: point your mouse on one of the outer walls in full resolution, spin your mouse wheel up/down and you will see .. --PtrQs 23:59, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment If I understand your comment, you're referring to the righthand wall. When you say 'some pixels' it was 5 pixels from top to bottom of the wall. I'm not sure the building is that perfect but I've changed it. -- Jim Evans 16:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support After this correction. --PtrQs 23:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support No problems and interesting composition. --Vincent60030 20:22, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 11:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)