Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 11 2024

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Вид_на_Большой_Кремлевский_дворец_со_стороны_Софийской_набережной.jpg

[edit]

File:Вид на Большой Кремлевский дворец со стороны Софийской набережной.jpg

  • Nomination Grand Kremlin Palace from the Sofiyskaya Embankment, Moscow --Юрий Д.К. 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Unsharp, harsh light, sky is  Overexposed --Augustgeyler 19:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not overexposed. Sharpness is normal. I don't understand you, sorry. --Юрий Д.К. 19:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Harsh light. A bit overexposed sky while the building is underexposed ---- Jakubhal 05:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Warning sign Warning At 06:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC) @Юрий Д.К.: completely deleted this nomination which was sent to CR on the day before. We cannot manipulate this process by just deleting things. The corresponding image was deleted hours later at 10:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC).
    I checked all other nominations by this user. All nominations which were directly promoted or had good chances getting promoted at Consensual Review remained untouched. All nominations which were about to get declined were deleted by for fast deletion or had ben withdrawn. --August Geyler (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info I just reinserted this to make the deletion transparent. As this file is not on Commons anymore I set this to result. --August Geyler (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --August Geyler (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Фасад_Большого_Кремлёвского_дворца_со_стороны_Софийской_набережной,_Москва.jpg

[edit]

File:Фасад Большого Кремлёвского дворца со стороны Софийской набережной, Москва.jpg

  • Nomination Grand Kremlin Palace facade --Юрий Д.К. 20:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Difficult lighting but still good quality. --MB-one 22:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The lighting is borderline. The sky appears  Overexposed . But most importantly the image is not sharp enough. --Augustgeyler 19:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Not overexposed. Sharpness is normal. I don't understand you, sorry. --Юрий Д.К. 19:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp (especially on the left side), building too dark (due bad light conditions; it was simply a bad time to take this picture from this angle), also slight blue tint. --Plozessor 08:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question Who was suddenly deleting this file?
author or uploader request deletion
  • I never saw something like this. Is this bad behaviour? And what should be done to the process here? --Augustgeyler 21:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Obviously an image that does not exist cannot be promoted, thus closing this with decline. --Plozessor 08:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Plozessor 08:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Fisherman_silouhette_at_Cape_zebib_beach_during_sunset.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fisherman silouhette at Cape zebib beach during sunsetI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2024. --Marwenwafi 17:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose chromatic aberration, overprocessed --Jakubhal 06:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree --Marwenwafi 13:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jakubhal. CA at water surface on the left side, lack of detail due NR, general lack of sharpness. --Plozessor 13:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 22:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Общий_вид_ул._Охотный_ряд_с_Театрального_проезда,_Москва.jpg

[edit]

File:Общий вид ул. Охотный ряд с Театрального проезда, Москва.jpg

  • Nomination General view of Okhotny Ryad from Teatralny Proezd, Moscow --Юрий Д.К. 20:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike1979 Russia 07:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. --Augustgeyler 09:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Strong disagree. Good sharpness. Again, I don't understand where you see "not sharp" --Юрий Д.К. 20:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Deleted. --Milseburg (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I can't believe it. @Юрий Д.К.: what is happening here? Who is deleting all these nominations? Are you deleting them? --Augustgeyler 16:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg (talk) 16:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Фасад_ГУМа_со_стороны_Красной_площади,_Москва.jpg

[edit]

File:Фасад ГУМа со стороны Красной площади, Москва.jpg

  • Nomination GUM facade from the side of Red Square, Moscow --Юрий Д.К. 20:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike1979 Russia 07:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lacking sharpness and  Level of detail too low --Augustgeyler 09:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Strong disagree. Good sharpness. Again, I don't understand where you see "Lacking sharpness and  Level of detail too low" Юрий Д.К. 20:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Unfortunately, as strong as you disagree I am certain about what I saw. Please don't get me wrong. It is a very nice and well composed image. I just spotted some technical flaws. I double checked it: When I lock at the image at 80 or 100% it looks unsharp, especially the left part of the image. There musst have been some more intense digital sharpening and de-noising involved which led to loss of texture at the façade and trees for example. --August Geyler (talk) 07:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The left ca. 200 pixels of the image are blurry and have CA (look at that small tower and the man walking there). The rest of the image is borderline but would be acceptable. --Plozessor 09:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info Deleted anyway. --Milseburg (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 16:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Фестиваль_цветов_2024_в_ГУМе,_Красная_площадь,_Москва.jpg

[edit]

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --August Geyler (talk) 06:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fisherman_during_Sunset_at_Cape_zebib_rocky_beach.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fisherman during Sunset at Cape zebib rocky beachI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2024. --Marwenwafi 17:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Noise or compression artifacts, overall blurry and lacking detail, sorry. --Plozessor 19:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree --Marwenwafi 03:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed and blurred --Jakubhal 06:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 07:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Sun_behind_the_rock_at_Cape_zebib_beach_during_sunset.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sun behind the rock at Cape zebib beach during sunsetI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2024. --Marwenwafi 17:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose No detail, too soft, probably from massive noise reduction made by the camera/smartphone --Plozessor 19:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree --Marwenwafi 03:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strongly overprocessed - plasticine rocks --Jakubhal 06:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. --Augustgeyler 06:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 07:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

File:A_man_on_the_cliff_at_Cape_zebib_rocky_beach.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A man on the cliff at Cape zebib rocky beachI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2024. --Marwenwafi 17:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose This wouldn't be so bad but it seems to suffer from too strong JPG compression, resulting in artifacts. --Plozessor 19:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree --Marwenwafi 03:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's so overprocessed that foam from the wave looks like frost on the window --Jakubhal 06:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others  Overprocessed and compression artifacts --Augustgeyler 06:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 10:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

File:2024_BMW_M4_(G82)_Competition_IMG_9370.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination BMW M4 (G82) Competition Facelift in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 09:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --El Golli Mohamed 11:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The roof and rear window of the car are too bright for me and the contrast between the rear and rear wheel of the car next to it is too low. Please discuss whether it is still a QI. -- Spurzem 09:20, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunate lighting, and the car doesn't stand out from the one next to it since they're the same color. --Plozessor 15:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 18:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Wienerstrasse_1_in_Amstetten_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wienerstraße 1 in Amstetten, Lower Austria, Austria. --Tournasol7 04:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike1979 Russia 07:17, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very unfortunate lighting with shadow on the main part and much too bright parts at the roof. For me no QI. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 09:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Good composition. But per Spurzem due to the large shadow. --Augustgeyler 06:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's a shame... --Sebring12Hrs 10:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Yeah, the contrast between the dark and bright parts is strong. Probably a different raw conversion with more clarity and less contrast could improve it. --Plozessor 15:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 18:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Bianchi,_Cyclingworld_Europe_2024,_Meerbusch_(P1170795).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bianchi road racing bike with mannequin at Cyclingworld Europe 2024 in Meerbusch --MB-one 08:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose People clearly recognizable --Georgfotoart 20:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment That's not relevant for QI. Plus, the photograph was created with an official permission by the organizers of Cyclingworld.. --MB-one 22:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question More relevant in this case would be if all the visitors agreed on being photographed when entering the event. Did they? --Augustgeyler 06:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @Augustgeyler: Yes, all visitors are made aware in the T&Cs as well as with posters at each entrance, that they are subject to photography and videography. That's commons practice at such events. So legally, we're 100% ok. --MB-one 07:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral It seams to be legal to show these people here. The image is technically OK. I just think the bike does no separate well enough from the cluttered background. --Augustgeyler 09:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support I agree with the cluttered background, but the picture is meant to show the situation at a fair. I guess it would not have been possible to take a picture of that bike at that fair without a cluttered background. It's not ideal but IMO it stands out just enough. --Plozessor 16:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Ok, with permission it's fine  Support --Georgfotoart 20:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --August Geyler (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

File:H145M_LUH_SOF,_ILA_2024,_Schoenefeld_(ILA44675).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Airbus H145M LUH SOF of the German Air Force at ILA Berlin Air Show 2024 --MB-one 21:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose People clearly recognizable --Georgfotoart 10:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment That's not relevant for QI. Plus, the photograph was created with an official permission by the organizers of ILA. --MB-one 22:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Obviously it is "relevant for QI" whether the picture can be legally published at all, but this is the case here per my understanding of German law. Picture is good. --Plozessor 16:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Ok, with permission it's fine  Support --Georgfotoart 20:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. I'm not a big fan of having recognizable people in a picture here (unless they are the subject of the picture, of course), but I can't oppose it if German law allows it. (but no country prohibits blurring a little bit people's faces in pictures :-) ) --Benjism89 21:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 22:53, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

File:20240628_juvenile_american_robin_south_meadows_PD202740.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Juvenile American Robin, South Meadows Trail, East Hartford, CT USA --Pdanese 21:27, 01 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Roberto9191 17:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Warning sign Warning Invalid vote. Only registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination --ArildV 19:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Picture is good though. --Plozessor 06:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree.--ArildV 10:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • a bit too much shade, but  Support --Georgfotoart 19:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Well composed but harsh shadow. --Augustgeyler 07:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Borderline (strong shadow and low level of detail on the tail) but good enough to me. --Benjism89 21:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 22:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Después_de_la_inundación_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dead fish after the Parana river flood --Felino Volador 21:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Roberto9191 17:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Warning sign Warning Invalid vote. Only registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination --ArildV 19:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Georgfotoart 19:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Borderline resolution, low level of detail and not sharp enough. --Augustgeyler 17:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler. Also crushed blacks. Sorry --Benjism89 21:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 22:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Hardwick_Hall_2024_225.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Baked potato with coleslaw and cheese, with side salad, at Hardwick Inn, Cheshire --Mike Peel 00:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Kritzolina 10:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is not well composed. The plate is cut slightly at the bottom. The image was coincidentally taken slightly from a non vertical angle and is tilted ccw compared to the table. --Augustgeyler 19:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unfavourable image detail--Georgfotoart 19:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bad crop. --Sebring12Hrs 13:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others, bad crop. Also lloks overprocessed and / or noisy. -- Benjism89 21:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 22:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Glori_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Catherine Palace - western facade. By User:Игорь Гордеев --Lvova 08:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Good image, but resolution and detail are too low here. --Augustgeyler 18:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support This one is good in sharpness come on ! --Sebring12Hrs 11:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Borderline resolution, but sharpness and detail seem perfect to me. --Plozessor 10:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The camera has 21 megapixels. To get such a small image it must have been downsized – which is against QIC – or massively cropped. --Augustgeyler 10:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler. The image size only slightly exceeds the hard limit for QIC, and with static motifs like this one, that is clearly not enough these days. The narrower side of the image should be at least 2000 pixels or the whole photo 6 Mpixels or more. I have no fundamental objection to a moderate downscaling if the shooting conditions are difficult. You can't reject Moroder's 60 Mpixel++ images because they have two pixel wide CA residues or blurs of similar smallness, but on the other hand promote small images like this one that hide such defects. --Smial 11:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Small but good--Georgfotoart 19:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per above.Ermell 05:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Per others, the low resolution makes this image look as sharp, but you can't take it to 4 Mp which is the size I usually have a look at pictures nominated here. Sharpness is actually borderline, and I do object the downscaling that has probably been made here. Nevertheless, I weakly support the promotion of this image, thanks to its composition and exposure. --Benjism89 21:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 22:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

File:L5_Sydney_Light_Rail_diagram.png

[edit]

  • Nomination Route diagram of L5 on the Sydney Light Rail network. --SHB2000 04:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Question Why are there different thicknesses in fonts? --Basile Morin 04:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  • semi-bold represents a terminus and/or interchange, bold is for the title. --SHB2000 05:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Atkins road, interchange? --Basile Morin 05:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  • That's bolded due to the terminus (see turnback at OSM). --SHB2000 10:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Looks like "Murdoch Road" does not exist --Basile Morin 13:24, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Done – Fixed that. --SHB2000 13:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Are there more issues, like this? I'm not from Sydney and could easily find an error. Also it looks like Robin Thomas is linked to F3. Ferry terminus seems misplaced. Can't find any indication of Atkins road's terminus on this map. Which source has been used to create the document? How to verify the content? --Basile Morin 02:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I live close to the line, so a lot of the knowledge is somewhat local and on-the-ground. Robin Thomas may be equidistant from F3 as Parramatta Square, but the official maps on the L4 trams (no photos and not open yet – I got to go in on a community event) encourage using Parramatta Square as the ferry interchange and I'd rather reflect that as I have with all my other Sydney public transit diagrams. Atkins Road turnback is based on the environmental impact map (I have it saved offline), but you can see the turnback on OSM (I can't link the URL without breaking the template, but just enter "map=18/-33.81554/151.06620" after the # to see the turnback). --SHB2000 07:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Or just copy https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=19/-33.81553/151.06562 into your browser for Atkins Road turnback. --SHB2000 07:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
This is not Wikipedia. NOR has no relevance here. --SHB2000 13:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Commons:Evidence-based mapping: "Although inaccurate or unsourced maps may not be easily deleted on Commons, accurate and well-sourced maps are much more usable. [...] Please use reliable sources and cite them. Otherwise, you risk wasting your time on creating maps that are much less usable than they could be, and will be replaced as better, well-sourced maps become available." And you put this file on Wikipedia. So it is (also) Wikipedia-broken -- Basile Morin 13:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Font emphasis with no symbol and no indication on why the text is bold sounds like unconventional. A new version of this file has now been uploaded with a different title (and a misleading summary since the major change is not the imperceptible modification of the "L4 color" but more obviously the title) and I don't think this diagram respects the norms of any official map.
This file "L5" is currently used on a Wikipedia page L4 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Parramatta_Light_Rail&diff=next&oldid=1232143401 ). Do you have a reliable source to confirm the name L5 is associated to Parramatta (like here for L4)? -- Basile Morin 04:01, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
It's the only other light rail line under construction – the chances of it being numbered anything else is next to zero. --SHB2000 05:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Verifiability. -- Basile Morin 11:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
COM:NOTWP. --SHB2000 13:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
COM:Evidence-based mapping -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Essays are not policy. --SHB2000 00:30, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
This essay is an excellent recommendation on Commons. Try to follow it and you'll have more chances of success. -- Basile Morin 02:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Recommendations don't need to be followed if it doesn't serve the viewer best. --SHB2000 03:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
It does. Healthy recommendation. -- Basile Morin 04:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Purely from technical side, this picture seems good, I don't see the need for 'an indication why the text is bold' because it's implicit that the bold stations are somehow important. But I can't judge the correctness. --Plozessor 04:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  • The picture looks very good, yes, and that's a problem, because it doesn't come from a serious institution, and its content is unreliable / potentially erroneous. It was called "Parramatta-Olympic Park Light Rail Line Diagram" and now it is "L5 Parramatta & Olympic Park Line diagram". Maybe tomorrow it should be named differently according to the authorities and we will have a Quality Image with wrong facts and labels -- Basile Morin (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Honestly, the comments that have come from you are quite frankly, disappointing. I've been following the project closely with news on the ground (and been to project open days + public consultations) and I know what's accurate and what's not. The line doesn't have a name yet, so there are no "wrong facts and labels", so I've just followed what I've done on every other line diagram (but neither name is "incorrect"). --SHB2000 05:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
And please, don't say that the comments that have come from me are "disappointing". At least one station was wrong by your own fault and I am the guy who has noticed it here. You could say "thank you" and be grateful instead of throwing unwarranted reproaches. Maybe the other maps contain mistakes too, I didn't check them, and probably nobody did. -- Basile Morin 11:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
You're the one who frivolously accused me of adding "wrong facts and labels" and failed to address that (the Murdoch St was a genuine error, but that's about as far as it goes). And again, COM:NOTWP. --SHB2000 13:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
And again... COM:Evidence-based mapping. What I wrote about wrong facts and labels: "Maybe tomorrow it should be named differently". Moreover, you changed the title with a misleading summary "fix L4 color". -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
...because I did? (from D8163A to CD0D4D) The title was a minor fix which had no effect whatsoever (only you seem to be fussy about it). --SHB2000 22:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question Can you show an official source with this logo L5 (color and number)? -- Basile Morin 04:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  • color is from https://www.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/styles/_large_x2/public/2024-02/Parramatta-Light-Rail-Stage-1-and-2-map.jpg.avif?itok=wYeWiA3I, number is implied. (it's certain that it won't be numbered anything else) --SHB2000 05:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Verifiability. It would be also very surprising that L4 gets almost the same color as L2 from the official institution. The name "L5" is just inexistent in 2024. The authorities don't use it, certainly for fair reasons. The line was supposed to open in 2026, and is now postponed until 2031. Maybe will never be finished. Thus the invention of this number + color is clearly original research. On Commons, a QI cannot be replaced nor deleted, once it's promoted, it has to remain unchanged. Which means likely wrong in this case -- Basile Morin 11:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
This isn't Wikipedia. See my comment above. --SHB2000 13:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
COM:Evidence-based mapping. The file makes it appear that there is an L5 line, with misleading logos, when this line was never called L5, does not yet exist, and perhaps never will exist. -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
"and perhaps never will exist" – not true, construction has already started. There will be an L5 line, logo is not misleading when this is a stock-standard TfNSW logo with the color directly taken from the website. If you don't know about something, don't comment on it instead of accusing someone who does know what they're doing of promoting "wrong facts and labels". --SHB2000 22:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Nord Stream 2 also started, some day. But a start does not guarantee an end. See Second stage of Parramatta light rail line will not open until 2031. Will there be a logo L5 with this color in 2031? It is pure speculation at this stage. There is no valid link today, and anything could happen within 7 years. The official sites do not even venture to give figures. So the content of this file falls into "Original research", and we should take into consideration that the goal is to use it on Wikipedia, of course. According to the authorities, there will be interchanges in at least two other stations. Those are not indicated. Which means a traveler who wants to go from point A to point B could make a long unnecessary detour while taking inspiration from this map. Perhaps more connections are missing too, if we check carefully. -- Basile Morin (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
a) if it's the color used on the website, there's no reason to not assume it won't be in 2031; b) missed my point with the interchange, that only the important ones are marked; c) you are the one speculating that it won't be the case in 2031; d) you are the one who is fearmongering by claiming "point A to point B could make a long unnecessary detour while taking inspiration from this map", you are the one who is opposing based on non-existent reasoning such as "Perhaps more connections are missing too, if we check carefully.", you are the one who seems to have missed the word "important" in my other reply. There are valid reasons to oppose, but the reasons you give are not one of them. --SHB2000 03:29, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Please don't focus on the participants, even if you disagree or are upset. Why does the official transportation website mention two more interchange stations if "they are not important", according to your own subjective point of view? Lambda traveler who wants to change at Tramway Avenue, for example, will figure out there is no possibility according to this plan. That's why the trip may be unnecessary extended. -- Basile Morin 04:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
It's perfectly fine for me to focus on your behavior based on your comments (and again, I'm focusing on your behavior, not you as a person). But, at the risk of repeating myself for the umptillionth time... I don't think you seem to grasp what an "interchange" means. No one is denying that you can technically do so, but interchanging at either stations would lengthen a trip when you can do so at Sandown Avenue (via a 100-meter walk, which is faster than the tram) – you have no reason to do so at Tramway Avenue or Robin Thomas, which is why marking them as interchange stations is misleading and could lengthen a trip. --SHB2000 06:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Just no. It's not "perfectly fine". -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Nice deflection; completely missed the point. --SHB2000 08:35, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
If that means an end for you using fear and misinformation, I'm all for it. Goodbye, I'm sure there are plenty of more constructive users who will give much more constructive feedback than you did. --SHB2000 12:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Disabled people: Please rename the file as "unofficial", "speculative map" or "project". It is very unwise to spread on the internet such a file called "L5 Sydney Light Rail diagram" showing a disability icon with the text "All stops on the L5 are accessible" (as if the line was welcoming). Maybe "will be accessible", in a far future. If finished, the line will not operate before 2031. Very confusing for people with disabilities, who might believe that they will be able to access the entrance of a specific station. Note that they might meet this map anywhere, not only on Wikipedia, but also on Twitter, Facebook or else. Eventually people not from Sydney searching for a reliable itinerary. Regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment For someone outside your argument it is really hard to follow. I would like to respond technically. I think this map should be provided as vector graphic like many other maps to be scalable. Why isn't it? --Augustgeyler 18:50, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
The problem lies with Inkscape as Inkscape SVGs contain SVG errors – it's a well-known problem that doesn't have many feasible solutions, so the best that can be done is exporting it to a high-resolution PNG file ([https://alpha.inkscape.org/vectors/www.inkscapeforum.com/viewtopic0f98-2.html?t=551] [https://alpha.inkscape.org/vectors/www.inkscapeforum.com/viewtopic13f4.html?t=21250] [https://inkscape.org/forums/beyond/inkscape-wont-open-svg-file-will-open-another-similar-one/]). I do agree it's less than ideal. --SHB2000 20:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I can not see why this should prevent creators from using svg. So many maps here are avoiding these issue by not using these kinds of shadows or transitions. I just took the first two examples I could find, some very intensively used and updated transport maps:
    SVG – Transit map of Leipzig area
    and SVG – Transit map of Berlin
    Both are using Inkscape made vector graphics and provide them as SVG. --August Geyler (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how exactly this can be done without converting the texts into a paths (which would make it very difficult to update later if the need ever arises). --SHB2000 10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The other maps I could find are doing exactly this. Text is exported as path. Fonts are given in the description and are under Creative Commons licence, so everybody can make updates. That's why I think you should try to publish a new version as SVG and nominate this instead for QI. --Augustgeyler 17:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 18:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Minor_masjidi_10.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Minor Mosque (exterior details), Tashkent, Uzbekistan. By User:Humoyun Mehridinov --Екатерина Борисова 03:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Sorry, but this is somehow overprocessed and not really sharp. Maybe it can be at least improved with better raw conversion. --Plozessor 03:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for a decent A4 size print. --Smial 09:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. Красный 10:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp at all. Very low quality. --Sebring12Hrs 10:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The image lost to much detail due to over-processing or it suffered from camera shake. --August Geyler (talk) 10:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quality is too low. --Zinnmann 09:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment It was my mistake to nominate this image, quality is really not good here, sorry. -- Екатерина Борисова 22:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support enough for QI I reckon. --SHB2000 07:15, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Augustgeyler 18:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)