Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 19 2023

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Kleine_Bach_14_in_Heppenheim_(2).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Building at Kleine Bach 14 in Heppenheim, Hesse, Germany. --Tournasol7 05:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Weak support Most of these pictures should be horizontally stretched IMO. Proportions are ok near the ground, but the upper parts are extremely stretched vertically due PC so that the pictures as a whole are looking unnatural. Otherwise they are good. --Plozessor 05:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't understand the issue here. The perspective correction is good. The verticals are vertical. Too much ? Always we say "perspective correction is needed". But what is the ggood perspective ? The guidelines are there. --Sebring12Hrs 08:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Changing my vote for this picture, as the building has really unusual proportions and this picture is not a good example for the issue I critize. But there are several pictures that were taken from a short distance with a wide angle; perspective correction makes these look significantly higher than they are in reality. They would look more natural if the image would be stretched horizontally by probably 5 %. --Plozessor 16:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 16:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Parroquia_de_San_Jorge,_Wasserburg,_Alemania,_2022-10-22,_DD_27.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Pfarrkirche St. Georg, Wasserburg, Germany --Poco a poco 08:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Overdistorted & looks very unnatural, sorry --Екатерина Борисова 21:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
  • A bold direct decline, I made some improvement, it looks like QI to me. Please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 08:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately I agree with the "overdistorted" statement. Just check the golden sphere on top of the church. --Plozessor 06:37, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 Comment I think you are right here, this one is a better example an unatural perspective correction Plozessor. --Sebring12Hrs 14:08, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Oberstadt_25_in_Lich_(1).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Building at Oberstadt 25 in Lich, Hesse, Germany. --Tournasol7 05:21, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:48, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Crop is too tight here on the left side. --Milseburg 08:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Left corner of the building missing. Also the picture looks distorted due extreme perspective correction, should probably be stretched horizontally a bit. --Plozessor 06:10, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support The crop is a little tight, that's true. But the perspective correction seems to me to be geometrically correct - and I've seen much more blatant and sometimes completely absurdly corrected photos promoted here without any problems... Certainly not a featured picture, but sharpness, lighting, exposure (a bit bright, but acceptable), composition and information content are completely sufficient for QI. --Smial 13:04, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Smial. --Sebring12Hrs 15:00, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Apparently the house cannot be photographed from a long enough distance, a problem I know all too well. Then you try to correct the perspective in the picture, but in my opinion this didn't work here well. In addition, the gable is too bright. For me it is not a QI. -- Spurzem 22:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but perspective correction has gone too far in my eyes. That we promoted others that went further is no excuse for continuing promoting those where it goes too far. I understand that it is difficult to get a really good picture of this buildin, but sometimes there are buildings, where this is just so and we might never have QIs of them as a whole building. --Kritzolina 08:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Kritzolina --Sandro Halank 16:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support --Jacek Halicki 14:59, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Truncated object --F. Riedelio 16:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Info; Milseburg, Plozessor, Kritzolina, Sandro Halank, F. Riedelio; new version uploaded. Tournasol7 19:45, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment The new version is even more cropped (more of the house is missing). Did you want to remove the car? --Plozessor 16:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
  • The new version shows the front wall of the building, which makes the shot less random. Tournasol7 19:20, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)