Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 29 2022

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Vancouver_(BC,_Canada),_Vancouver_Harbour_Flight_Centre_und_Kreuzfahrtschiff_"Queen_Elizabeth"_--_2022_--_171906.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Seaplane at Vancouver Harbour Flight Centre and departing cruise ship “Queen Elizabeth”, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada --XRay 02:19, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 02:31, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The same foto nominated 27 aug. (The difference is only in the aspect ratio of the picture). Please select one. --Mike1979 Russia 07:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The ship is the same, but the image is different. Good quality. --Palauenc05 07:58, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The second image is not a problem IMO, but the upper part of the ship is blown. Sorry. -- LexKurochkin 07:18, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  I withdraw my nomination Quality defects are not a problem and criticism of them is gratefully received. What I find problematic is the view. With QI, each image is evaluated separately and the value of a single image is also evaluated. But it is not evaluated a value in comparison to other pictures, because for that there is VI. Here I make it short and withdraw the nomination. There are shortcomings and in this respect a non-existent QI seal may even be good, because it shows the differences in the equipment used. --XRay 09:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for choosing the best variant of foto. But I don't agree with you in interpretation of value criteria. In QI we evaluite value of each image for Wiki project not the value of image by itself. And I don't see the value for Wiki in two identical images. IMO. --Mike1979 Russia 11:13, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days XRay 09:30, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]