Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 02 2023

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Singe_La_View.jpg[edit]

File:Hohenschwangau_Castle_09.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hohenschwangau Castle, Hohenschwangau, Ostallgäu, Bavaria, Germany --Llez 06:36, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Technical quality is good, except for the really unbalanced composition (too much uninteresting sky, too little building). Since I suspect, that this isn't fixable, I'm afraid, I have to decline. Feel free to ask for more opinions though. --MB-one 13:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't think there is too much sky. Reduce the sky would mean, to leave only little room above the top of the poles or even cut them off ("Let the poor thing breathe", as a wikipedia said several times some time ago). Please discuss. --Llez 18:25, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Too much sky: No. Too little building: Yes, though that could be tolerated. However, the picture is blurry (probably from camera movement), the swan is not even sharp at 4 MP. With the combination of questionable composition and borderline sharpness, does probably not make a QI. --Plozessor 06:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose How many QIs can we tolerate from same viewpoint and time? C'mon, pick the best and nominate that one, not the whole bunch. --Kallerna 10:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good for me. I know much QIs with less good composition. -- Spurzem 19:25, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Spurzem ! --Sebring12Hrs 11:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't deslike the composition, which seems balanced to me.-- Alvesgaspar 15:12, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --C messier 08:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 08:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Weisshorngruppe_in_den_Wolken.jpg_[edit]

  • Nomination: The mountain range around the Weisshorn in the clouds.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Paradise Chronicle (talk • contribs)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --C messier 19:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quite low resolution and not very much detail. Loss of quality to the left edge. --Milseburg 19:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment It looks like it is a crop from a single frame, not a sticthed panorama, and as such it isn't downsized. --C messier 06:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Just about ok, but could benefit from increasing clarity. Currently it's quite pale. --Plozessor 05:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The shorter edge of a panorama shot should have at least about 2000 pixels. Also somewhat overexposed. --Smial 11:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment The image guidelines mention 800 px, not 2000. Also, this isn't a panorama made of multible photos but a single photo. --C messier 17:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
      •  Comment The image guidlines mention also For "easy to take" images, reviewers may choose to demand more if the image would benefit from it.. A panoramic photo is not defined by the fact that it is composed of several individual images, but by the fact that the aspect ratio is significantly larger than the usual standard image formats, i.e. 2:1 or larger. For roll film 120/220, for example, there were panoramic cameras with an image format of 60x120mm or 60x170mm. Without any stitching. --Smial 13:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Looks o.k. to me, even though the low clouds obscure some parts. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of contrast, too imposing darker foreground. Alvesgaspar 15:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 08:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

File:D-4-71-174-96_Wohnhaus_(Hauptgebäude_1723),_Zaugendorfer_Straße_9,_Mürsbach.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Timber-framed house from 1723 in Mürsbach --Plozessor 06:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  CommentThe blurred person should be cloned out or left sharp with a personal rights template. --Ermell 06:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Per my understanding of German law, I'm not allowed to upload a picture of that person with the face visible, and that can't be bypassed by adding a template. Unfortunately I also don't have enough material to clone him out professionally. --Plozessor 07:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not a QI with the blurry person. Sorry. --Ermell 09:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Uploaded a new version with only the actual face (not the whole person) blurred. Would like to discuss this to clarify how blurred faces, license plates and other privacy-related modifications are viewed in the context of QI. --Plozessor 16:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Much better but the noise should be reduced.--Ermell 20:58, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ermell you're hard to please ;) Noise reduced, please have a look. --Plozessor 14:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. The old gentleman would probably be sad if he saw himself sitting there with his blurry face. It would also be nice if his feet were in the picture too. -- Spurzem 16:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Could be, but as said, per German law I'm not allowed to show his face without his consent. No QI then ... --Plozessor 18:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I think it's ok, better than an ugly car in any case. --Imehling 15:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Imehling. --Sebring12Hrs 11:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Maybe the shot could be done without the person, that would be much better than seing the blurred face. Also, the feet ar missing. Alvesgaspar 15:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 Comment But the person was sitting there, and I rather pass on the QI promotion than requesting an old gentleman to go out of the way ;) Came back to the place a bit later, but then it was cloudy. (Still wondering why cars in front of buildings are usually tolerated, people without blurred faces are too, but people with blurred faces are not.) --Plozessor 15:47, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Fine with me with the blurry face, but I agree that the bottom crop is unfortunate Poco a poco 18:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Poco a poco, Alvesgaspar, and Spurzem: I just noticed that I have the gentleman's feet in the raw file and just had cropped to tight. Please review the new version! Thanks! --Plozessor 19:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. The new crop is much better. --C messier 20:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support ok now.--Ermell 15:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Ermell 15:37, 1 December 2023 (UTC)