Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 27 2021

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Julia-Menge_-0.4+0.6i.png[edit]

  • Nomination A disconnected Julia set. --PantheraLeo1359531 19:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Please indicate in the Caption/Summary how this was created. The Category "Created with Xaos" does not exist -- pl. create or remove. --Tagooty 02:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Thank you, cat fixed :) --PantheraLeo1359531 12:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
      •  Comment Thanks. I do not know how to judge the "quality" of an image generated by open-source software. The QI guidelines apply to photos. Perhaps others can comment/judge the quality. --Tagooty 03:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
      •  Comment Moving to CR for a discussion on how to evaluate a software generated image. --Tagooty 09:30, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support It's a pretty image of adequate size and certainly not too simple to be a QI. Those are probably all the things that matter. -- Ikan Kekek 05:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Nicely done fractal with good colors and file size. This Xaos-created fractal also allows for closer examination of detail. Agree with Tagooty that Commons should develop QI criteria for computer-generated imagery as it has controls not available to typical photographic images. --GRDN711 16:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment just jumping in to express concern over promoting computer-generated images which can be mass produced with precise settings. not enough to oppose -- I just don't think we should be including them here, most of the time. Rhododendrites 03:24, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --LexKurochkin 20:33, 26 April 2021 (UTC)