Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 04 2024

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Pecheurs_remballant_leur_materiel_en_fin_de_journée.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Pecheurs remballant leur materiel en fin de journée --Atef Ouni 20:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Well composed. A bit noisy but good. --Augustgeyler 19:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Too noisy and distorted. --Milseburg 20:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Milseburg Jakubhal 09:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Noise even visible at 4 MP. Might be possible to fix it with better raw conversion though. --Plozessor 10:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeylet 22:26, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Караойский_заказник,_большая_песчанка_(9).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Great gerbil in Karaoy sanctuary. Balkhash District, Almaty Region, Kazakhstan. --Красный 06:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too blurred. Sorry. --Ermell 09:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support To me the sharpness is still ok. Please discuss. --Zinnmann 14:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ermell, cute animal and beautiful composition but simply not sharp enough, not even at 3 MP. --Plozessor 10:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but I have to agree.--ArildV 13:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 22:28, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Fuente_de_Saint-Michel,_París,_Francia,_2022-10-29,_DD_141.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fuente de Saint-Michel, París, Francia, 2022-10-29 (by Poco a poco) --Sebring12Hrs 10:11, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 18:26, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Inadequate perspective (very low point of view) for that building. --Augustgeyler 16:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm sorry but I don't understand. If we are too close to the object and we make vertical lines straight, it is not good because it make distortions and looks unnatural. However, when we give up the straight lines and we decide for a low shot of buildings, this is also bad... --Tournasol7 14:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment That is not what wanted to say. Willingly chosen high angle perspectives can be a good decision. At buildings it is hard. The PoV should be very centered and the resulting extreme perspective should support the shape of the building (for example at sharp triangular shapes). --Augustgeyler 20:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support There's also a QI category "Perspective" where this fits in. Just a bit unfortunate that the sides are cropped. --Plozessor 15:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 22:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Люки_25.06.24_СПб_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A manhole cover at 28 lane of VI --Lvova 05:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment I'd suggest a tighter 1:1 crop to get rid of the sunspot. --Augustgeyler 08:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I would prefer not to do this to preserve the sprouts and cobblestones around. Lvova 19:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am sorry to oppose but additionally the angle is not good. It should have been taken straight downwards. --Augustgeyler 22:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The overall quality is good enough and I don't think that the reason to decline this image is fair --Екатерина Борисова 02:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 Comment. I'm always surprised at what some people present as a quality image. But I'm also surprised that others confirm an image like this one as QI. -- Spurzem 11:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 Comment So am I. -- Екатерина Борисова 16:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 Comment This page looked like a very friendly place with very gentle behaviour even during a refusal, but I'm not surprised anymore. Lvova 23:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The object is rotated, text should be horizontal and the two notches should be in line. Also the sunspot is unfortunate. --Plozessor 15:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Text may be tilted, but in general it is horizontal. Look at ВД and СССР letters and at 1979 date. -- Екатерина Борисова 16:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Yeah but tilted, that's what I meant. This is an object that clearly has a correct orientation (so that the text is completely horizontal and the upper notch is directly above the lower notch). --Plozessor 04:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose very unfortunate lighting, image corners unsharp. --Smial 22:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 22:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Dzerzhinskogo_Street_32,_Tyumen_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A wooden house, Dzerzhinskogo Street 32, Tyumen, Russia. The corner house with Khokhryakova Street (numbered as #28). --Lvova 03:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 20:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Horizontal perspective is not good here. The image was taken slightly form the side. --Augustgeyler 16:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
 Comment. Is this green the real color of the probably white frame of the window? -- Spurzem 11:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
It is natural. In the category it is possible to see white ones, but they are not original and the photos are much more late. Lvova 17:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Per Augustgeyler, this can be fixed probably. About Spurzem's question, let the photographer answer but to me it seems that the green is natural and the white balance is correct. --Plozessor 15:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 22:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Flying_pink_flamingo.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Flying a single pink flamingo above sebkha halk el menzelI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2024. --Bill.pix 21:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Was nominated already on May 22 2024 --Екатерина Борисова 03:06, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment It is not forbidden to renominate unassessed QI candidates. It just means that nobody reviewed this nomination in the first place. This nomination was never rejected or even reviewed. --Augustgeyler 07:54, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry/overprocessed. --Plozessor 08:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strongly overprocessed. There is a halo around much of the bird. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:15, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 07:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

File:At Berlin 2024 377 - Berlin Cathedral.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Berlin Cathedral --Mike Peel 02:42, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 06:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This image is too distorted due to camera angle and perspective correction. The pillars are leaning in. --Augustgeyler 22:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 06:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The perspective correction is well done for me, however the file name could be better. --Tournasol7 10:14, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
    File renamed. Thanks. Mike Peel 20:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks :) --Tournasol7 14:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 07:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

File:150254_at_Barry_2024-06-22.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 150254 at Barry station. --Suntooooth 18:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Question Am I right that you are the author of the image who uploaded it to flickr in the first place and later transferred it to Wikimedia – always under creative commons licence? --Augustgeyler 08:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 08:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quality and resolution below minimum. --Augustgeyler 12:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quality is poor -- artefacts on the side and the writing not legible. Size is barely >2 MP. --Tagooty 05:23, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Borderline resolution, would be acceptable if it would be perfect otherwise but it is not. --Plozessor 08:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 08:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Kanika_Chorten_Sani_Zanskar_Ladakh_Jun24_A7CR_00773.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kanika Chorten, said to date from 2nd cent AD, Sani Gompa, Zanskar --Tagooty 00:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 13:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the perspective is not working well. Verticals are leaning in. The point of view is very low. Additionally the obstacle in the upper right corner should be cropped out. --Augustgeyler 07:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  • @Augustgeyler:  Thank you. for the review. I have adjusted verticals and improved the crop. Please review the new version. Note that this chorten is said to be 1,800 years old so this lines are not very geometrical. It is located inside the small courtyard of the monastery with the only full view being from ground level close by. --Tagooty 05:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Great! Thank you for editing. I changed to neutral. The image did improve. I just would like to point out that a higher point of view, resulting in a less upwards tilted camera, would have improved the reproduction of that monument further. --August Geyler (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looking good (now). --Plozessor 08:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 08:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Aston_Martin_DB12_Volante_IMG_9321.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Aston Martin DB12 Volante in Filderstadt --Alexander-93 15:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment I would like the picture if it wasn't cropped so tightly. -- Spurzem 16:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment There is also an image available, showing the vehicle with a less tighter crop. But for illustrating an article about the DB12, this version might work better. Please discuss.--Alexander-93 20:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 23:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Crop is fine for the purpose. Grey car on grey street is a bit unfortunate, but streets are grey so that's not the photographers fault. --Plozessor 08:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 08:16, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Chiesa_ipogea_Chiesa_San_Sepolcro_Milano.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Chiesa San Sepolcro church in Milano--Moroder 10:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Good quality, is there any way to reduce noise in this picture ? --Benjism89 13:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for the comment. I've tried my best. I didn't want to smooth it too much, loosing detail. --Moroder 14:22, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Some noise but also very high resolution (64mp). Clearly QI imo. --ArildV 09:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is too distorted. The floor looks like being in a slope to the left. Comparing to other images, that's not what the floor is like. --Augustgeyler 10:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
    • I don't understand what you mean. They are rectangular tiles in perspective. Do you mean that we have to do also a horizontal perspective correction? --Moroder 16:52, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In that case actually yes. Perfectly straight verticals combined with really crooked horizontals make this picture look very strange. --Plozessor 03:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment This little lack should be correctable without difficulties. Therefore I would not decline the image. -- Spurzem 12:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Oh come on, no exaggeration, please. A lens is not the human eye and will not give a perfect image. It can be corrected with software, but there will always be some errors. And in this picture everything seems natural. Good quality for me.--Tournasol7 03:23, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes come on ! I do not understand this votes ! This picture is very good. The floor is litlle bit leaning but it's not a big distortion. --Sebring12Hrs 07:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  • And I don't understand why pictures that are leaning vertically by 0.01° are under no circumstance QI while pictures that are leaning horizontally by 30° are perfect QI. In this case, it's actually not the leaning floor that disturbs me but the background - especially as it wouldn't be hard to fix that. I might consider removing my opposing vote, but I will not support it in the current state. (I have a similar issue with these heavily distorted images, like church tower photographed from 2 m in front of it at the ground - but as long as the verticals are vertical, no one complains about the massive distortion.) --Plozessor 09:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I think it's difficult to have everything straight, the roof, the walls, the floor... Here the floor is leaning. In addition interior photos of buildings are very difficult to take. But I understand your opinion. The Tournasol7's file : File:Sts_Peter_&_Paul_church_in_Baja_(2).jpg has a PC, but I don't think is a massive distortion. But it doesn't matter, I understand too. We just don't agree on this specific point. Have a nice day ;) --Sebring12Hrs 10:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  • @Sebring12Hrs: I am sorry to disagree. The floor is not "a little bit leaning". it is strongly distorted in my eyes. This happened due to improper use of a wide angle lens and / or at perspective correction afterwards. But I am here to learn something. Perhaps I am the only one who does see this (at least Plozessor could see it). --Augustgeyler 12:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The picture is too distorted. If it is not possible to correct the horizontals and the verticals at the same time, then in my opinion it would be better to balance both parameters instead of optimizing one and more or less ignoring the other. --Zinnmann 16:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Let me know if the floor is naturally sliding left, but now it seems that the perspective has created a wrong impression. The doors facing to each other should be at the same level, right? -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 08:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Sts_Peter_&_Paul_church_in_Baja_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Sts Peter and Paul church in Baja, Bács-Kiskun County, Hungary. --Tournasol7 05:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Moroder 14:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think intense perspective correction based on a very close and low point of view led to unnatural proportions. --Augustgeyler 22:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 08:12, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I would skew it (make the right side lower) to reduce the extreme distortion. --Plozessor 10:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Jacek Halicki 17:18, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The church tower looks very unnatural due to unfortunate perspective correction. -- Екатерина Борисова 20:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support A lens is not the human eye and will not give a perfect image. It can be corrected with software, but there will always be some errors. And I'm not agree, it's not a extreme distortion and it not looks very unnatural. Maybe it's a bit too close, but no exaggeration, please. --Tournasol7 03:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
     Comment You cannot vote for your own photo. Vote stricken --Robert Flogaus-Faust 07:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
    • Sorry my mistake, I wanted to use the template  Comment. --Tournasol7 17:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed, extreme perspective correction. --Kallerna 16:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed.--Ermell 10:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
    Kallerna, Ermell; I brightned the image a bit. It's better? Tournasol7 18:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
    • much better. Thank you.--Ermell 18:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Augustgeyler 08:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)