Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 19 2021

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Streitberg_Wiesentbrücke_Luftbild-20211111-RM-154015.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Aerial view of the railroad bridge over the Wiesent in Streitberg in the district of Forchheim --Ermell 07:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose weird light cast in the lower right corner. Blurred at the sides of the image --Hillopo2018 09:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    • New version. Please have a look. --Ermell 23:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support @Hillopo2018: In general, we allow more leeway for pixel-level unsharpness on images with decently high resolution (like 20 MP). The corner unsharpness is quite typical for this model of drone and is nothing to worry about, unless you intend to decline all pictures shot with this drone. --King of Hearts 05:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per KoH. -- Ikan Kekek 05:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 14:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Barcelona_1800.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Casa Batlló, Barcelona --Señor Aluminio 00:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 08:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too grainy --Hillopo2018 08:58, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks pretty good even at 100% on my 23.5-inch monitor. Very subtle grain. -- Ikan Kekek 05:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Even pixel peeping rather low noise level. Any attempt to "improve" this would lead to blurring details. Colours seem natural, not oversaturated, very nice lighting, acceptable sharpness, somewhat unconventional, but appealing composition. --Smial 11:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 14:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Floridsdorfer_AC_2016–17_–_Flavio_dos_Santos_Dias_(02).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Flavio dps Santos Dias, footballplayer of Floridsdorfer AC. --Steindy 00:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Question Did you crop this a lot? --Augustgeyler 08:40, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    • Basically, I crop almost every photo in the 3: 2 format so that you can combine them. The 3000x2000 px are easily enough for a printout in A4 format. In any case, the original was also in portrait format. --Steindy 13:45, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
      •  Oppose Thank you. In that case I have to oppose. On that special case the crop led to visible compression artifacts. --Augustgeyler 15:59, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
        • I understand! If I have a photo of the original size 3648x5472 px and make a cutout of 2000x3000 px from it, then compression artifacts arise. Thank you very much @Augustgeyler: for your professional rating! --Steindy 18:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
          •  Comment Please stay fair. You can crop as much as you like. But please take into account, that in some cases this may raise the visibility of artifacts which might speak against promotion as QI.
  •  Support Good for me --Commonists 20:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Still good quality for a photo of game play, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 05:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Slight motion blur on one of his feet, but nothing major considering it's a sports photo with movement. The sharpness is good. Cropping (as long as it's not extreme) is not a problem - downsampling would be.--Peulle 12:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 14:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Floating_fire_and_rescue_vehicle_based_on_TM140_during_the_"Armiya_2020"_exhibition_(front_view).jpg_[edit]

  • Nomination Floating fire and rescue vehicle based on TM140. --Kirill Borisenko 20:17, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose No. Extreme illustration errors --Hillopo2018 08:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Question What kind of errors?
  •  Oppose Lots of artefacts (just look at the wheels). Also suffers from exposure issues.--Peulle 11:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 05:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurring Noise reduction and massive oversharpening have successfully fought each other. -- Smial 11:25, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 14:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Hohes-Schloss-Fuessen-JR-G6-6681-2020-06-21.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Trompe l'oeil on the walls of Füssen castle, Allgäu, Germany. --Johannes Robalotoff 17:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Velvet 08:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Derivative work (fresco?), but no indication of authentic authorship. Possible copyright problems. --Andrey Korzun 08:38, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
    •  Comment There is certainly no copyright problem with a two-dimensional painting which is 522 years old and is unremovably fixed on a wall in a public place. The authentic authorship cannot be identified for sure after so many years, but it is most likely Fidelis Eichele, who lived about 500 years ago. So there cannot be copyright issues. A Wikipedia article is ony available in German: de:Hohes Schloss Füssen --Johannes Robalotoff 08:24, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
      • It is impossible to understand that the work of art is located in a public place, or that it is more than 500 years old. It seems to me that it is necessary to place the template Template:FoP-Germany. Or Template:PD-old as for a 2-D artwork. It will be good practice. --Andrey Korzun (talk) 11:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
        • Please visit the category page where this image is assigned. There are a lot more photographs of the same subject, also with surroundings and also by other authors. This should make it understandable. Besides: The image subject is not completely two-dimensional as the central windows are real, not painted, and the corner of the house on the left is also real and three-dimensional. --Johannes Robalotoff 08:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
          • Are you ready to provide explanations to every end user of your photo? It seems to me that it will be difficult for you. Templates were invented to save time and effort, I have already written about them here. It is wise to use them. --Andrey Korzun 14:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, and I was expecting that to be the answer. It certainly does not look contemporary. -- Ikan Kekek 09:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 10:54, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Infrastructure_au_campus_de_kongola.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Infrastructure au campus de kongola, Maroua Cameroun (by Harouna674) --Bile rene 13:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment The image is tilted slightly to the right. Additionally I suggest to crop large parts of the content-less foreground. --Augustgeyler 11:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 18:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
    •  Oppose Dear @Steindy: , it is no good behaviour, promote candidates other reviewers are still reviewing. I did not want to oppose on this candidate. I just wanted to ask the nominator to correct some small issues. Now you are forcing me to oppose on it. --Augustgeyler 07:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilted. It is comparatively unlikely that photos nominated by others will be corrected. CR is intended precisely for deciding disputes. These discussions in the nomination sections above are a waste of time. --Smial 11:32, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment They're not when they're discussions between the photographer and one or more reviewers who haven't voted, with suggestions for improvement. -- Ikan Kekek 22:39, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looking at the door frames, the image does appear to be tilted cw.--Peulle 11:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 14:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)