Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 29 2024

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Gdansk_2023_40.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination National Museum in Gdańsk - Archangel Michael in Memling's Last Judgement --Scotch Mist 09:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, not a QI with that reflexion on the right --Poco a poco 10:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Image The area with the reflection was retained because it highlighted the condemned sinners - should that area have been cropped? --Scotch Mist 11:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment You need to change from a ambiguous file name to one that briefly describes the image. --Tournasol7 05:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The reflection is on the right and in the central part too. --MIGORMCZ (talk) 06:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It might not be possible to take a better picture during a regular visit of that museum, but sorry, the reflections are really disturbing. --Plozessor 03:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Mike Peel 12:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Gdansk_2023_42.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination National Museum in Gdańsk - Mary Triptych --Scotch Mist 09:33, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Too blurry, sorry. Also, the file name and description are a bit misleading. --Peulle 09:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Beautiful image though it ist taken with 800 ISO and it is not so sharp as we like it. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 10:27, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose With an exposure time of 1/13 it'd have been better to use a tripod. As above, too blurry. --Alexander-93 10:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment You need to change from a ambiguous file name to one that briefly describes the image. --Tournasol7 05:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too blurry for QI. --MIGORMCZ (talk) 06:22, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurred --Jakubhal 06:52, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurred. Which is not a result of high ISO but of camera movement, should probably have used even higher ISO (or a tripod of course). --Plozessor 03:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Mike Peel 12:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Église_de_Choëx_-_Tribune_de_l'orgue_et_entrée.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The organ loft and main entrance to Choëx church. --Espandero 20:03, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Alexander-93 21:28, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunate lighting. The organ is too dark and the entrance is much too bright. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 10:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info Spurzem well the organ is made of darker wood and the entrance has a light right on top of it so I don't know what I could have done different while taking this picture. You can see on another file that the organ's wood is dark. I feel like the details on the file we're discussing here are sufficient to prove it's not a lighting issue. I don't feel very comfortable trying to play with lights settings in Lightroom to alter the reel lighting but I could try if I have to. - Espandero 18:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Light is ok, there are neither pitch black shadows nor blown out highlights. IMO the picture is good. --Plozessor 03:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Mike Peel 12:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Flamants_à_Thyna_(Sfax)_edited.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Greater flamingos at Thyna salt plains, Tunisia (by El Golli Mohamed, edited by Aristeas). – Aristeas 14:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Derivative work of an image that is already QI, I don't understand this nom, to bo honest --Poco a poco 19:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Exactly that’s the point. The original image is a QI in spite of being noticeably underexposed, tilted, and showing CAs. This version improves all these points. To be honest I wonder why the original image has ever been promoted to QI status. I do not want to propose to delist it (seems we do not have rules for delisting or replacing QIs, do we?), but if people search for a QI of that subject they should at least find also this improved version, not only the defective original one. This is why I have nominated the derivative version, and why IMHO this deserves a discussion. --Aristeas 09:52, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
     Comment The source is also a featured picture with ten supporting votes and five opposing votes. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 08:35, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
     Comment Yes, that’s a different story. The nominator did not offer the edited version as an alternative although several users suggested that and even more voters noted shortcomings of the original picture. Hence the FP status does not mean that the original version is better. Therefore I would suggest that we assess the edited image (the one nominated here) according to the usual QI criteria. If one thinks that it is bad (or even worse than the original one), clearly one should vote with “oppose”. If one thinks both images are equally good, one can vote “oppose” for the reason given by Poco a Poco above (no need to promote a derivative version when the original one is rightly a QI). However if one thinks that this edited image fulfills the criteria of the QI guidelines and is better than the original one, one could vote with “support”. --Aristeas 13:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
     Comment I did not create this derivative version in order to get “yet another QI” etc., but just because I wanted to help other people – the photographer did not react to the suggestions made by several people for improving the original image. Now IMHO it would be just correct that people who search for a “good image” (QI etc.) of this subject will not find only the original one, but also the edited version. – Aristeas 13:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
     Comment I am fine with a replace (this one becomes QI, the other one revokes it) but not with granting 2 QI stamps to the same picture Poco a poco 20:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
     Question OK, but how can we make a replace? – Aristeas 16:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support This image clearly meets the criteria for QI. We have no rules against nominating derivative work. I don't see why this very good image should not get the QI mark. --Kritzolina 20:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Poco.--Ermell 08:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The problem is homemade. Photos that have already been given a badge must not be overwritten. FP can have their status revoked, but QI cannot. I could not find a rule that very similar or (improved) derived photos may not have a QI badge. In a pragmatic world, such a revision would have simply been copied over the existing version with the note "If you don't like it as the image author, please reset". I've done this a few times with QI candidates. But, see rule 1: You're not allowed to do that with photos that have already won an award. I don't currently see anything that would prohibit the QI status for both images. --Smial 11:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Kritzolina. --Smial 11:38, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Kritzolina and Smial --Plozessor 03:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nominating derivative versions of QI's, even if they're slightly improved, is a stance that's incredibly easy to abuse. ReneeWrites (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Smial's comment --MIGORMCZ 08:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I found this discussion by coincidence: A few months ago, there was a similar discussion where the consensus was against re-nominating an improved derivative. I admit that the improvements were less than in this image. Just for reference in the context of this discussion. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 13:44, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support In my opinion, the significant improvement justifies a promotion. I would like to agree with the statements of Aristeas and Smial. --Radomianin 13:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Smial --Jakubhal 18:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support given the fundamental QI objective of making better quality images available via Commons, the argument of Aristeas appears sound providing appropriate credit is given to the original author which seems to be the case here! --Scotch Mist 09:50, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Mike Peel (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)