Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 22 2023

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Black-and-purple_dancer_(Argia_oculata)_male_purple_form.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Black-and-purple dancer (Argia oculata) male purple form --Charlesjsharp 10:58, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Neutral Basically a good composition, but resolution is too low.--Alexander-93 18:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
    "Images should have at least 2 real megapixels of information". But it is above 2 MB, mea culpa. > Neutral.--Alexander-93 (talk) 12:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please read the image guidelines Alexander-93. You cannot decline for low resolution. Charlesjsharp 21:20, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Info Just as a point of order, it is perfectly within the Guidelines to decline because of what the reviewer considers a low resolution. I quote: "Images should have at least 2 real megapixels of information (with the exception of animations, videos, and SVGs), for example, 1600 × 1250. For "easy to take" images, reviewers may choose to demand more if the image would benefit from it.".--Peulle 19:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, but I think people should be able to decline because they think the image is too small. I do that with photos of buildings and so on. -- Ikan Kekek 20:49, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 21:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Close_wing_basking_of_Rapala_pheretima_(Hewitson,_1863)_-_Copper_Flash_WLB.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Close wing basking of Rapala pheretima (Hewitson, 1863) - Copper Flash WLB --Anitava Roy 15:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 05:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose resized to 6000 x 4000 --Charlesjsharp 09:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --多多123 16:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 21:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

File:2022-05-21_50._Internationales_Dixieland_Festival_Dresden_1DX_1721_by_Stepro.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination 50th International Dixieland Festival Dresden: Dresdner Jazzmeile, Moderator Bodo Gießner. By --Stepro 19:17, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Very good image. Could you please ad some information to the description about the location the man is speaking at. --Augustgeyler 19:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  • "Dresdner Jazzmeile" is the location. There are 5 stages in a row, and this is one of them. --Stepro 21:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  • As "Dresden Jazzmeile" is no permanent adress or a point anyone could find in a map, you should descripe where this stages are or just use a geocode. --Augustgeyler 00:42, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but "Altstadt Dresden" is given in IPTC, and on which of the stages he is at this moment is absolutely unimportant. --Stepro 14:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Question Why do you think this is unimportant? --Augustgeyler 23:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • This is a portrait of a man with a microphone. I see no additional value to know, if this portrait is on stage 1, stage 2, .. or stage 5. The portrait of this man is on all those the same. --Stepro 11:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose OK. I do not agree. I think the QI guidelines are telling something different. There should be a description of the location which is precise enough to tell someone who does not know where this festival is held in Dresden, where this picture was taken. Otherwise there should be a geolocation. --Augustgeyler 18:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I find the reason so pointless that I would like to put it up for discussion. --Stepro 22:36, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. Very good photo. Since nothing can be seen of the place where it was taken, the place does not have to be described. What is the point of this requirement? -- Spurzem 15:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. Same rationale, no specific address would be required in my opinion. -- 多多123 15:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support The location information is totally adequate. -- Ikan Kekek 20:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 21:10, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Pfauenfeder_Detail-20230511-RM-163536.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Detail of a peacock feather --Ermell 08:36, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:51, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment crop is too tight for me --Charlesjsharp 10:47, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Unfortunately, there is no more space on the left side. I have adjusted the crop. --Ermell 21:12, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Can you have another go! --Charlesjsharp 09:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Kind of too big for the focus, but the crops are perfectly OK, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 21:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 21:16, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Seattle_in_May_2023_-_029.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Seattle Japanese Garden --Another Believer 14:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --F. Riedelio 06:56, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good composition. I am very sorry, but I have to oppose again. This image was  Overprocessed. Intense oversharpening and noise reduction led to nearly texture free surfaces on leaves and stones. At the same time most edges are unrealistically intensified. --Augustgeyler 20:30, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I can understand Augustgeyler's analysis and I see the same over-optimizations, but I still come to a different assessment, because with this image a decent print in A4 size is still possible without disturbing artifacts. --Smial 10:04, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me. -- Spurzem 10:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me also --Halavar 12:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The Japanese maple on the right looks bad to me. Few of the leaves have good details. -- Ikan Kekek 21:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ikan --Jakubhal 04:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficient detail in the leaves. --Tagooty 04:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Augustgeyler 21:18, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Biserica_de_lemn_„Cuvioasa_Paraschiva”_din_Sat-Șugatag_-_(2023)_-_IMG_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wooden Church "Saint Paraskeva" of Sat-Șugatag --Chainwit. 16:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough and  Level of detail too low. Typical issues to smartphone pictures. --Halavar 18:04, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. I think that it is charp enough. We should not overdo. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 20:55, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose With Halavar. --Augustgeyler 07:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Some detail loss in very dark areas, otherwise good enough. --Smial 10:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 06:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support IMHO good enough for QI. --F. Riedelio 09:53, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sky is posterized and does it have CA? -- Ikan Kekek 21:41, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ikan --Jakubhal 17:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others.--Ermell 21:55, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 21:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Seattle_in_May_2023_-_041.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Seattle Japanese Garden --Another Believer 13:38, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Halavar 18:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Sorry, but rather low level of detail and slight oversharpening. Let's discuss. --LexKurochkin 09:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I can't see the two ladybugs on the meadow either, but the picture is still good. We shouldn't overdo it with the requirements. -- Spurzem 08:33, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough quality to me. -- Ikan Kekek 09:20, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The description is insufficient: "Seattle in May 2023" is way to vague. A statement about this park / garden is missing as well as about the shown sculpture. On the other hand here is also no geocode. The sculpture has some perspective distortion. Additionally the level of detail is very low. --August Geyler (talk) 13:22, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
@Augustgeyler: You could say it's none of my business. Nevertheless I ask if you're not overdoing it. Or what is the reason for basically declaring the photos of a certain user unusable? Best regards -- Spurzem 13:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 Comment I am sorry, but I do not agree on your point. I try very hard to review as detailed as possible. If supports or opposes aggregate at certain types of images or on nominators it just can happen due to reoccurring characteristics of those images in question. --Augustgeyler 15:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
 Comment @Spurzem: do you judge photo by photo, or have you decided to defend a certain user's pictures? IMO, this picture has a low level of detail. Promoting it would be unfair to others whose much technically superior photos have been rejected previously --Jakubhal 04:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 Comment The problem is not with user, but with smartphone JPEGs. Yes, with good lighting and some luck there is a small chance to make QI-compliant photo, but 97% (my personal estimation) of smartphone JPEGs, including ones from modern sophisticated smartphones, are not in compliance with the Guidelines and the problems mostly are the same: low level of detail (due to small primitive lens and small sensor) and overprocessing (to compensate the problems of lens and sensor). It works for many purposes, many people not really focused on photography are happy with smartphone JPEGs, there is nothing wrong in uploading smartphone JPEGs to Wikimedia Commons, but QIC is a bit different, it is about technical excellence and skills in photography, so, getting QI is not impossible, but very difficult with a smartphone. And it is so for everyone. --LexKurochkin 15:18, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low level of detail --Jakubhal 04:43, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
Hallo LexKurochkin, Jakubhal and Augustgeyler, the technical excellence actually seems to be the only criterion for the evaluation as a quality image. If the sharpness is right and the lines of a building are absolutely vertical - even if they appear unnatural - then the picture is excellent. What else it looks like doesn't matter. Significant parts of the image may sink into shadows, the crop may be much too narrow, and what is happening in the background is completely irrelevant. In short: Good image design is irrelevant for QI, the image just has to be absolutely sharp. Did I understand that correctly? Best regards -- Spurzem 11:05, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
@Spurzem: The overprocessing is especially visible on the road and leaves. They are washed out of texture and look artificial, like a part of a bad painting. To a certain degree, almost all mobile phone pictures have this problem. However, I tend not to vote if the problem is not glaring. In the case of this picture, the problem is very visible to me, so I vote against it. I don't mind different opinions, however. If there are more votes in favor, let it be a QI. But, I don't like that you attribute ill intentions to other people, presenting it as "this user is against that user." Please don't. --Jakubhal 12:21, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 Info @Spurzem: No, the Image guidelines are not that simple. There are many requirements for a QI, including low noise, good exposure, right white balance, absence of visible CA, etc. And we see many opposing votes on grounds of CA, overprocessing, big blown-out areas, noise. Too tight crop and other composition questions frequently create discussions. --LexKurochkin 13:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with others. --Tagooty 04:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 21:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)