Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 09 2023

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:133_Calea_Călărașilor,_Bucharest_(07).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 133 Calea Călărașilor, Bucharest --Neoclassicism Enthusiast 18:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low --Augustgeyler 09:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 15:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Info (NB: this was nominated twice and I hadn't noticed, will oppose the other one procedurally, let's see what others think. Thanks.) -- Mike Peel 18:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC))
  •  Support. Good quality. I see no lack. -- Spurzem 07:36, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the detail level is too low for a daytime still image like this.--Peulle 08:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Only the bottom part (around the Roman number) is sharp, the rest especially the top is out of focus and blurred. The glass element in the bottom-right corner disturbs the composition. --Jakubhal 16:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

File:At_the_Intrepid_Museum_2023_053.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Space Shuttle Enterprise at the Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum --Mike Peel 15:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 17:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately, obsured by barrier in front and distorted with wide angle lens. --GRDN711 12:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose With Gordon.--Augustgeyler 07:54, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm satisfied with the portrayal of the subject, under the circumstances, but there is serious purple CA in the lights that has to be corrected. -- Ikan Kekek 07:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)