Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 15 2022

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:35._Ulica_-_Afuma_-_Etsumon_-_20220709_1451_7860.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Afuma group in the show "Etsumon (Solidarity)" at 35. ULICA – The International Festival of Street Theatres in Kraków --Jakubhal 13:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn
     Oppose The background distracts too much --Jmh2o 18:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for review, I would like to check other opinions --Jakubhal 18:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose agree, also how many QIs do we need of the same event? --Kallerna 03:12, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who do you mean by "we"? And where do you find in the guidelines something against nominating multiple pictures of one event? I am very careful to not nominate similar pictures. All of those nominated are unique. Using this logic we should never nominate pictures of famous monuments for example, because there may be hundreds of QI pictures of them already. But this is the QIC page, not the valued pictures candidates page. Not the one best picture is selected here. Every photo should be considered separately (unless it is almost a copy - not an issue here) --Jakubhal 05:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I strongly disagree with Kallerna opinion regarding events photography and QIC page, but the background of the photo in this particular case seems to be a real problem and there is no support. Thank you very much for the reviews. I withdraw --Jakubhal 09:09, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bardowick St. Nikolai 009 2022 05 31.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Gravestone at the chapel St. Nicolas in Bardowick (Lower Saxony), view from the west
    --F. Riedelio 06:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Nice but low quality, a bit blurry --Romainbehar 07:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
    I disagree. --F. Riedelio 10:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's not bad, but the upper part is not sharp at any size, so I agree with Romainbehar. -- Ikan Kekek 07:33, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Somewhat oversaturated, but sharpness is good enpugh to be printed to A4 size. --Smial 09:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp (motion blurr?), overexposed. --Palauenc05 11:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:27, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

File:Charleroi - rue de Charleville - immeuble moderniste (maison Dolpire) - 2022-06-29 - 03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Charleroi - Maison Dolpire - modernist architecture building by Marcel Leborgne in 1946. --Jmh2o 08:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion IMO the cropped car at the right spoils the composition --Michielverbeek 06:49, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
    Bonsoir, j'ai téléversé une autre prise de vue, sans aucune voiture visible. J'ai soumis cette nouvelle image au vote. --Jmh2o 20:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
     Support The car in deep shade in a corner does not bother me in an urban scene. Good quality. --Tagooty 02:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support per Tagooty. --Smial 09:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support No problem with the car -- Spurzem 16:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:28, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

File:Rursee 04.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Shore area at the Rursee, Germany --Llez 04:12, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 04:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Some frames are blurred. Overall sharpnes could be better regarding the image hight and the camera used. --Milseburg 09:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment Basically, I find the resolution and the basic sharpness completely acceptable, 2500 pixels image height is okay for a panorama, even if the camera used would offer more. But the two areas where apparently the stitching did not work well are unfortunately really disturbing, because you can see them even when you look at the photo reduced to screen height. If this can be fixed, I would definitely give it a "pro", because the colours and the light are good, and the slight fluctuations in brightness in the sky don't seem unnatural. --Smial 10:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
    •  Info Thaks for the reviews. I made a new stitch, omitting the unsharp frames. I think it is OK now. --Llez 20:53, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support That looks good. The colours seem even more natural to me. --Smial 23:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment Better now. I've marked a little spot that you could improve. --Milseburg 13:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)