Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 08 2025

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Etang_Majeur_de_Bassies_08.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Étang Majeur de Bassies in PNR Pyrénées ariégeoises, Ariege, France. (By Krzysztof Golik) --Sebring12Hrs 09:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Nikride 11:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose White CA's between the mountains and the sky, and blurred tree.--Reda Kerbouche 15:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Quality is fine for me, tree is a little unsharp (due to lens correction?) but it's not a central part of the composition. The mountains themselves look very good; I agree there is a little bit of haloing (not CA) above some of the mountains, which usually occurs because of masking, but not enough to make me oppose. There is, though, a rather noticeable spot (dust/insect?) in the sky towards the left side, roughly above the right-hand end of the dam. Would support once that was removed. BigDom (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Dust spot has been removed. BigDom 14:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dust spot in the sky above the dam, otherwise ok. --Plozessor 11:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. --Tournasol7 13:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support now! --Plozessor 16:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Lotus_Eletre_DSC_7019.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Lotus Eletre prototype in Böblingen --Alexander-93 19:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 19:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A bit too bright and poor description -- Spurzem 12:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Exposure is fine - it's a white subject and no detail seems to be lost. Composition and quality good. BigDom 07:38, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Ferrari_SF90_Spider_DSC_6993.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ferrari SF90 Spider in Böblingen --Alexander-93 19:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 19:49, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Roof and Ferrari Logo are too bright, -- Spurzem 12:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Exposure seems good to me - the reflective surfaces are brighter but not clipped. Composition is acceptable for QI. BigDom 07:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Церковь_Николая_Чудотворца_Ворзогоры_фото_10.jpg

[edit]

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 07:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Jayabheri_The_Peak,_Vertical_shot.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Jayabheri The Peak, Vertical shot --I.Mahesh 16:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Ok, but I think it would be better with less sky at the top --Imehling 21:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
    @Imehling: ✓ Done, please review again. ~~~~ --I.Mahesh 05:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks --Imehling 07:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image seems unterexposed. It would be interesting to know at what time it was taken. Please discuss. --Spurzem 11:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Underexposed, also too bad that there's no EXIF data. --Plozessor 12:52, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support I have no problem with the exposure here. The facade is in shadow. Resolution and sharpness are above QI-average. PC is ok. QI for me. --Milseburg (talk) 20:48, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 01:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dull colours. --Smial 13:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC))

File:SAS_Crown,_perspective_view.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination SAS Crown, perspective view --I.Mahesh 16:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Imehling 07:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image seems to dark. I think it is underexposed. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 11:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. BigDom 08:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dark and looks distorted. -- Екатерина Борисова 06:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support per Imehling. No problem with exposure or pc. --Milseburg 20:50, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 01:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others --Smial 13:11, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)