Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 06 2025

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Klementinum_Křižovnická_chodba_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Baroque corridor in the former Jesuit Clementinum College in Prague. --Skot 19:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 21:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, but IMO it's not sharp enough (especially in the background, where the flowers are) and noisy. --Екатерина Борисова 23:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, it was really noisy, uploaded new version with reduced noise. --Skot 08:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality. Christian Ferrer 14:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO above the QI bar. --Sebring12Hrs 14:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support good quality. --Rjcastillo 02:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Thomisus_lobosus_07786-Enhanced-NR.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Thomisus lobosus. --vengolis 18:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 19:10, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. The animal is certainly tiny, but it looks rather blurry with very few fine details (e.g. hairs). In addition, there is no Exif data, no location and no date of recording. Sorry. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. Picture is good but description is lacking. Where, when and how was this taken, what kind of flower is this, it doesn't give anything except the species of the animal. --Plozessor 06:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others, and I don't like when flower pictures don't have information about location (as Robert Flogaus-Faust said). --Sebring12Hrs 06:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Also overcategorized and wrongly categorized now. Category:Insects on flowers of Lantana camara hybrids is some steps below Category:Lantana camara and a spider is not an insect! --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  CommentI get that this might not be a great photo, and I do appreciate the criticism—it helps me figure out how to improve my photography and editing next time. But about the categorization, anyone can fix it if something’s wrong, and someone already did—thanks to them. I uploaded this to contribute, and I think stuff like categorization can just be fixed directly without needing a big discussion here --vengolis 18:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
     Comment You are right. However, you cannot take this for granted. Thanks for the location, which nobody else knew. However, I still oppose this photo because of its lack of detail which cannot be compensated by sharpening. Just for example, compare the legs of the animal in your photo with those in your quality image File:Crab spider 06984.JPG. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 19:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Still over the bar for me. --Plozessor 04:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Not the most sharp I have seen, but not blurred at all. Christian Ferrer 14:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Olsztyn 2023 070 Copernicus Sculpture Face.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Face of Copernicus Sculpture --Scotch Mist 07:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Unfortunately, the hair and chest are out of focus. --Benjism89 16:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hair & chest are peripheral to the face which is the focus of the photo - another review please? --Scotch Mist 09:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discuss? --Scotch Mist 09:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The chest is still a part of the face, and per description this is supposed to show the "head", not the "face". I'd accept hair and neck out of focus, but here not even the full face is in focus. Also the nose is blown out. --Plozessor 06:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Mis-named file renamed - removing effect of sun on nose beyond this author's talents! --Scotch Mist 12:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks! I still stick with my vote mainly due to the blown-out nose (which probably can't be fixed in post-processing). --Plozessor 04:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Sint_Petrus_en_Paulus_mosaic_in_Amsterdam.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sint Petrus en Paulus mosaic in the Church of St. Peter and St. Paul, Amsterdam. --Reda Kerbouche 13:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Size vs. Quality - too much of the first, too less of the last --PtrQs 00:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for your comment, I want other opinions. --Reda Kerbouche 08:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support It is razor sharp at lower resolutions, we should not punish people for following the "do not downscale" rule. --Plozessor 07:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Plozessor --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Nearly any picture declined for lacking sharpness you can make razor sharp when looking at in 1024x800px.
      Once more the same discussion whenever a new 'better' technology comes up. This one we had, when the first Hasselblads came up with their 50Mp sensors: What's the use of more data/pixels when the increase of data does not result in more information, so it is irrelevant?
      What will happen when I take a 50Mp picture under bad circumstances, e.g. I need to raise the ISO to senseless values so the the result is noisy and patchy? Then no reviewer will suppose 'look at it in smaller size'. It will be declined for technical reasons.
      The camera in this case can do acceptable picture when being used under good light conditions. But when used in dark surrounding, tests show that some 'intelligent' software tends to replace missing information with algorithm fantasies. Some day even mobile cameras will be able to take good pics under not ideal conditions.
      But I see no sense in ignoring QI guidelines just because of advertisments promising fancy technology making perfect pictures. --PtrQs 12:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
       Comment This is not about 1024x800px, which would be irrelevant, because it is below the minimum size for a QI. However, the image looks absolutely sharp at 6 MPx and only very slightly blurry at 15 MPx, even though it is quite blurry at full scale. Therefore, at least in my opinion, this is good enough. Wishing you a happy new year --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
       Comment Per Robert, I didn't support because it's sharp at 1024 x 800 but because it's sharp at adequate resolution, "sharp enough for an A4-size print" as Smial would say. Otherwise, my criteria for evaluating QI is usually whether the photographer did something wrong. If a picture taken under low light conditions in a dark museum has NR artefacts at 24 MP due high ISO then it might be acceptable, if the same picture has camera shake because the photographer chose too low ISO then not, even though both images may look the same at low resolution. Picture with "NR artefacts due high ISO" taken in bright sunlight is not acceptable even though it might be the same quality as the acceptable image from the museum. --Plozessor 04:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Plozessor. --Benjism89 19:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

File:Placa_Huellas_Eusébio_A74277220241123.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Eusébio Footprints Plate. --Rjcastillo 01:47, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 02:16, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image obviously comes from a museum. More information as to what it is and its significance needs to be in thw image description. Also, are there no copyright issues with this image? Please discuss. --GRDN711 03:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment These are tributes to different footballers (the majority of Brazilian nationality). These pieces can be photographed indicated by the same people responsible for the collection that are in the Maracaná stadium, Rio de Janeiro. If anyone can provide support on the topic, thank you in advance. --Rjcastillo 00:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Per COM:QIC this image needs a complete and accurate description on the file page. The issue of copyright should also be addressed. --GRDN711 18:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Legends and descriptions corrected. --Rjcastillo 22:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support now with changes. --GRDN711 19:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now because of the perspective. Should IMO be rotated so that the text is horizontal. --Plozessor 16:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is something very strange with the focus at left. There is an area completly out of focus and then it is in focus. There is no transition between the two areas. I added a note. --Sebring12Hrs 13:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks, Plozessor/Sebring12Hrs. --Rjcastillo 21:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Text is still not horizontal. --Plozessor 11:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done now ?.--Rjcastillo 18:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes! --Plozessor 04:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support quality matching QI criteria --Virtual-Pano 21:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)