Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 21 2024

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Forester_kangaroo_(Macropus_giganteus_tasmaniensis)_juvenile_Esk_Valley.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Forester kangaroo (Macropus giganteus tasmaniensis) juvenile --Charlesjsharp 14:31, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry, but not enough of the kangaroo is in focus --Mike Peel 23:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please have another look --Charlesjsharp 10:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, but looking again, it's a bit improved but the front and back are still really out of focus, particularly on the front which has turned into a blue haze. More dof was needed here, sorry. --Mike Peel 22:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment second opinion someone please, Mike - can you delete one of your opposes. Charlesjsharp 10:07, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Seems perfectly sharp to me. --Plozessor (talk) 05:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me --Jakubhal 05:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I actually find the first version slightly better than the second, but both are good enough in any case given the fairly high image resolution. --Smial 11:37, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm still surprised by the support votes here, the front part of the kangaroo is in focus, but it's a very shallow field of view. But fair enough - the focus is the only issue here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Are you looking at an old cached version? I can see every single hair even at the left ear and left feet (which are in the back) and the major part of the tail. Only the end of the tail of out of focus. --Plozessor 05:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I guess I'm being too picky here, the front in particular seemed off. Anyhow, I'll strike my oppose, and actually this can be promoted now since it's 48 hours since the last vote. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Mike Peel 16:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Hamburg_Blumensand_Silo_Kruse.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg, Blumensand, Silo P. Kruse --KaiBorgeest 23:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Review
     Support Good quality. --Plozessor 05:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too soft, maybe too strong jpg compression. Blown out sky. Slightly tilted. --Kadellar 13:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

File:ADAC,_IAA_Summit_2023,_Munich_(P1120209).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Polestar 3 on display at ADAC booth, IAA Summit 2023 in Munich --MB-one 19:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Sorry, this would be a great photo but that half head really kills it IMHO. --Plozessor 05:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
     Support I don't think so, I didn't even see it when I examined the image yesterday, so I vote to promote. --多多123 17:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
     Comment The man has gone now. His half head over the roof of the car was very disturbing indeed. -- Spurzem 17:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
    @Spurzem: Yeah, but the traces of your edits can be seen - there is a rectangle with a slightly different color than then surroundings, and part of the car's roof is missing. Thus still no QI for me, sorry. --Plozessor 17:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Plozessor: Of course we can criticize at the highest level. But what errors you see are probably more of a guess than reality because you know what it looked like before.  Support For me the picture is good now. -- Spurzem 10:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Spurzem: Let me quote you: Why am I biased when I see clear defects in a photo? Can pictures only be praised here? Here's an overcontrasted excerpt of the new version, that shows the defects I'm referring to: Click. The original version had an annoying head in the background but no technical defect. Your edit has technical defects from incorrect retouching. Would be great if correctly retouched though. --Plozessor 11:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
@Plozessor: It is astonishing how you believe to have discovered a serious error in the execution of what you consider to be a completely unsuccessful retouching, but on the other hand, you recently rated a partially blue-tinged photo of an altar as a quality image. Our ideas about good images are obviously very different. -- Spurzem 12:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
@Spurzem: We might have different ideas or probably different monitors or different eyes, that's what the CR process is for. --Plozessor 13:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question Is it appropriate that User:Spurzem voted for a photo version that he retouched? Or should this vote be removed? --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
@Robert Flogaus-Faust: Please tell me the law that prohibits collegiality. -- Spurzem 22:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 Comment I just gave you an answer on my German Wikipedia talk page. Briefly, you uploaded a version of the photo that you retouched and then voted for this retouched version. In my opinion, retouching a photo makes you a coauthor of the retouched version and you should not be allowed to vote for it, just like the original author. But please correct me if I am wrong. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Plozessor: Can you please tell me where my supposedly serious error in image editing was, which you have now corrected in a masterly manner? It would also be interesting to know what gives you the right to delete my review, even though I basically don't care anymore. -- Spurzem 14:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Spurzem: See the link I already posted yesterday:
    https://i.ibb.co/HpKdyMY/cardetail.jpg
    You covered the head with a square that had a slightly different tone than the surroundings, resulting in sharp edges ('your' rectangle was visible). Depending on the monitor settings, one might not see the difference; on my monitor it was really annoying. --Plozessor 14:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cluttered surroundings. And because the sharpening artefacts present in the original were not taken into account, the car now also has a dent in the roof. --Smial 09:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
@Smial: I also saw the apparent dent; but it is probably part of the body shape. Best regards -- Spurzem 12:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
@Smial: On Spurzem's side here; the original picture shows quite clearly that the dent is real, it's not a photographic/retouching flaw. Surroundings are not optimal, but they hardly are for these car pictures; at least there are no people right behind the car (anymore). --Plozessor 13:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Well, the retouching can still be seen, especially since you have also removed the noise that is present in the surroundings and left a hard edge. One can think it's great, but in view of the overall impression of this photo, I take the liberty of sticking to my opposing vote. --Smial 17:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Kadellar 06:58, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)