Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 01 2019

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Renault_Espace_Initiale,_GIMS_2019,_Le_Grand-Saconnex_(GIMS1310).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Geneva International Motor Show 2019, Le Grand-Saconnex --MB-one 07:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Not all the car is in focus, please try focus stacking --Cvmontuy 00:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 Comment Unfortunately focus stacking is not an option in this situation, as it's not a studio shoot. IMO the vehicle is reasonably in focus. Please discuss. --MB-one 14:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good enough, IMO, but did Cvmontuy vote against? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 21:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Neutral The typical difficult case of museum or exhibition photo. The blue background is reflected too much in the bonnet, windshield and roof and also bother the many small light reflections too much. I know the problems and therefore I can not vote against the picture; but a quality photo is it not in my opinion. -- Spurzem 19:11, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 12:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Kinheim_BW_2018-08-05_13-47-45.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Germany, Kinheim, Burgstraße 45, parrish house, door of the wine cellar --Berthold Werner 11:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. There's a bright rectangle in the lower right corner and perspective adjustment needs to be done (sorry, forget to save my comment) --Der Angemeldete 16:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Why is a rectangle of light bad? Looks like good quality to me. I seriously doubt everything in the picture is in fact exactly rectilinear. -- Ikan Kekek 03:01, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support It is OK for me --Llez 05:41, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lacks sharpness for such a still subject, and there is purple CA on the edges of the painted arch. I don't have a problem with the light.--Peulle 08:34, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment - OK, I see the purple CA now, but it's probably just 1 pixel wide. Best to fix it, but you really have to look for it at full size to see it. -- Ikan Kekek 09:26, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful door, good image -- Spurzem 13:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan --Smial 21:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan. --Cayambe 19:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 12:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Münster,_Spiekerhof,_Kiepenkerl_--_2019_--_3729.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Plaque for the victims of the attack of 7 April 2018 at the square at the Kiepenkerl (Spiekerhof) in Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:42, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose composition seems a bit random and the DoF is too small for the main subject. --MB-one 07:39, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment It isn't random. The sign in the front should be sharp and the place and the buildings not. It's to remember the attack. --XRay 09:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. Good photographic realization in my opinion. --Ermell 13:51, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Verticals are straight enough for Q1. Please look to the background, not to the sharp foreground (the main part of the photo) --Michielverbeek 08:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per MB-one.--Fischer.H 09:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Intentional DOF. A focus stack could be an interesting alternative, but should not be demanded. --Smial 10:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. The implemetation isn´t working in my eyes. --Milseburg 16:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Per others --Cvmontuy 04:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 12:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)