Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 31 2023

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Alekseyevsky_Monastery_Uglich_2023-07-22_7457.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Alekseyevsky Monastery in Uglich --Mike1979 Russia 05:57, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry but the disturbing light pole in the foreground is the reason for no review. If it were a night photo with the light pole more to the left or you were more to the right and you took a photo with the light on it would be a QI to me (for creativity and technical quality could still be managed just after sunset when there's still light available). --多多123 12:01, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support OK to me. --Ermell 17:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support The lamppost may be distracting, but it's there and can't be avoided. It would be even more distracting at night when it's on. Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 07:09, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 Comment It doesn't seem that you understood what I said, the light pole can be avoided from a different framing, at night it would be the "supporting character" for the building as it's the source of light shining on to the building, that is if it works of course. --多多123 20:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
It can't be avoided if you're shooting a view of this side of the building, and even if you're right that it would be less obtrusive at night, I think it's generally not reasonable to require a view not to be shot during the day to be an acceptably good photo. -- Ikan Kekek 14:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support, Very good image of a crumbling, formerly beautiful building, a sign of transience -- Spurzem 08:28, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support A camera position two or three steps further to the left would have made it possible, for example, to create a crop of the pediment without the disturbing lamp post. But in my opinion, this is not such a serious flaw that is sufficient to reject the otherwise very neatly taken photo. Ok, if you are picky, you could also criticise the cropping at the right edge of the picture. --Smial 22:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 06:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

File:At_Dunham_Massey_2023_62.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hydrangea arborescens ssp. discolor 'Sterilis' at Dunham Massey Hall --Mike Peel 16:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose DoF. Let's move this to the discussion so that others can review this too. --多多123 12:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support It was unnecessary for you to move this here, but the DoF is fine to me: enough of it is sharp enough. -- Ikan Kekek 07:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan. Nice lighting that still retains some detail even in very bright areas.. --Smial 09:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Filename could be more informative. --Tagooty 13:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 06:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Fountains_near_Equatorial_Sundial_at_Schönbrunn_Palace_in_Vienna,_Austria_PNr°1041.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A fountain near the Equatorial Sundial in the gardens of Schönbrunn Palace in Vienna, Austria --D-Kuru 05:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose IMO too bright and f-number is too low --Michielverbeek 06:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
  • The low-ish DOF was chosen intentionally. I made a series of images (including f/8 and f/11) but I went for this one because some elements (like the row of plants in the foreground) were too distracting and pulling away attention from the fountain as main object. --D-Kuru 15:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment It might be an option to crop the bottom because it is too blurry for me --Michielverbeek
  •  Comment Period 26 August-4 September I am offline --Michielverbeek 06:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC) 20:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I personally like the blurred foreground, it gives an impression of tridimensionality. --多多123 13:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Fine, except that I don't know if I've ever seen quite that sky color. It seems like a gray day that's somehow too blue, but I can definitely be convinced that the sky looked like that. -- Ikan Kekek 07:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low DoF - not fixable. WB seems off (purplish sky)? --Tagooty 12:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 06:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Kigelia-Africana-Serengeti.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination: A sausage tree inside the Serengeti National Park in Tanzania. By User:Uspn --Nightflyer 09:28, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Isiwal 12:32, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Really cool tree! I think this is too noisy on the left side, though. -- Ikan Kekek 05:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. -- Ikan Kekek 17:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. Why a double contra? I like the tree very much and the picture quality is okay -- Spurzem 13:16, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
@Peulle: I see the vote „Good quality“ by Isiwal. Why two „Oppose“ and zero „Support“ in the addition? -- Spurzem (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 Info I stroke out Ikan Kekek's second vote. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I only voted once. The first line had been just a comment I had left up for a couple of days. -- Ikan Kekek 19:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA on branches, and on fruit on left. Lack of sharpness. --Tagooty 12:59, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 06:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)