Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 24 2022

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Opel_Grandland_Hybrid4_1X7A0315.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Opel Grandland Hybrid4 (Facelift) in Sindelfingen.--Alexander-93 20:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 03:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose To many reflections on the car. Vehicle registration plate has to be blinded for currently used vehicels? --Lodewicus de Honsvels 21:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO OK as it is. --XRay 07:44, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 11:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

File:Tree_bud_in_spring_f1.8.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A budding tree in spring --NightWolf1223 16:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality. --aismallard 13:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree. Heavy CAs --Steindy 15:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    New version uploaded --NightWolf1223 17:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
    ::Sorry, not enogh. --Steindy 15:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose disturbing artefacts and the new version is still suffering from very shallow DOF --Virtual-Pano 14:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice use of DOF. Very good quality printed to A4 size. --Smial 18:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose bad crop. --Kallerna 15:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No ID of the depicted species (or at least genus), insufficient description. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry -- Basile Morin 02:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

File:Spatschlucht_Schriesheim_20220507_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Spatschlucht in Schriesheim, Germany --Domob 16:09, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Sorry! Outblown sky. --Steindy 16:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
     Comment True, but the subject (and most of the image in fact) is fine. Please discuss. --Domob 18:56, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, the outblown sky is not disturbing here. --Sebring12Hrs 17:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support The motif, the Spatschlucht, is fine. --Zinnmann 11:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 11:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

File:Volkswagen_Golf_I_(1982)_1X7A0128.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Volkswagen Golf I from 1982 at Retro Classics Stuttgart 2021.--Alexander-93 19:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Virtual-Pano 19:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Very disturbing informations. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 21:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support I can't see anything wrong with the technical quality of the photo. As for the signs on the windshield, they are part of the scene; you can't go to a car dealership and expect those to not be there.--Peulle (talk) 06:35, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@Peulle: I can only wonder again and again. -- Spurzem 06:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Was my opinion unclear in any way? As I see it, this image captures the real world. The cars in this setting have these labels on them. The photographer is not allowed to remove them in order to get a "better shot". --Peulle 07:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@Peulle: That was new to me until now. Also, couldn't I ask the seller to take the posters out for a few minutes to take a better picture? A few years ago, for example, I placed an information board in a museum on the side that would have disturbed the picture. However, I had asked one of the servants if it would be allowed. I also asked the owner of an old Audi if he would take the blade behind the windshield wiper away for a few minutes. In other cases, I retouched the disturbing object. Was all this forbidden? Best regards -- Spurzem 17:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support per Peulle. If this were VIC, we might be well justified in considering the signs a problem, but not in my opinion at QIC. -- Ikan Kekek 10:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: Here you can see how different the opinions of a quality picture are. Apart from the information sheets, the dark left side of the white car bothers me. Best regards -- Spurzem 14:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. If, as is to be expected, the image passes as QI, then hopefully it will not be categorised under "quality photos of cars" but under "quality photos of advertising and sales events". --Smial 17:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The labels are very disturbing, indeed. The "photographer is not allowed to remove them ...". That may be right, but then, it's not a quality image. --Palauenc05 06:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support by Peulle and Ikan Kekek --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Per others --Sebring12Hrs 14:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose busy background. --Kallerna 10:56, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)