Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 19 2024

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Ефремов,_Красивая_меча_на_закате.jpg

[edit]

Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 23:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grote_Kerk_Breda_grafmonument_van_Renesse_en_van_Hemel_tondo_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tondo depicting the third of the seven sorrows of Mary. --ReneeWrites 20:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, but  Level of detail too low --Augustgeyler 18:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Taking it to discussion ReneeWrites 07:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 23:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Grote_Kerk_Breda_grafmonument_van_Renesse_en_van_Hemel_tondo_5.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Tondo depicting the fifth of the seven sorrows of Mary. --ReneeWrites 20:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, but  Level of detail too low --Augustgeyler 18:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Taking it to discussion ReneeWrites 07:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 23:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Altendorf_DBAG_Class_411-20240714-RM-151640.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination DBAG Class 411 after passing through Altendorf station --Ermell 05:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 05:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Compared to the other images it looks slightly  Underexposed and could be fixed easily. --Augustgeyler 19:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for the review. --Ermell 22:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now! --Augustgeyler 07:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looking good (now). --Plozessor 05:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 09:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Monstranz-Christian-Schweling-Köln-1657.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Monstrance by Christian Schweling (1657/58), Exhibited in the Cologne Cathedral Treasury, destroyed 1975, rebuilt 1978-1897 by Peter Bolg. --Tuxyso 17:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry but lack of DoF (only the very front is sharp due low f-number). --Plozessor 04:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)<
  •  Comment It is Not a Studio shot, but taken hand-helt in a museum. imho the quality is at a very high level and the important parts are sharp. I would like to discuss. --Tuxyso 17:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Plozessor. This argumentation would work well on VI. But when promoting QI we should make sure that images always meet QIC standards. We have to accept that sometimes there are objects we can't make QI from. For example, sometimes it can be a good idea to negotiate with museums to upload their catalogue image to Commons. I know that's hard and chances are small, but if successful many new Quality Images of important objects can be won. --Augustgeyler 07:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 09:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Elbaue_Jerichow_SPA0011_(WDPA_ID_555537432_).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View from the Klietznick observation tower over the Elbe --Georgfotoart 19:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 06:40, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Low size, too soft, transitions in the sky. --Milseburg 21:59, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Milseburg. With less than 1000 pixels height it should at least be razor-sharp. --Plozessor 06:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 09:24, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Elbe_bei_Ferchland_10.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Steep bank Ferchland --Georgfotoart 17:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Well composed panorama. But level of detail is just too low here as well as shadows are too dark. Additionally the sharpness is borderline. --Augustgeyler 20:22, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done OK, revised, new on 15. 07. Thank you very much --Georgfotoart 19:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info @Georgfotoart: Please keep an eye on the syntax you are using. 1.) Please don't add comments after the end of nominations … July 2024 (UTC)}} but directly before }} or use the QICvote extension. 2.) In this case I decline, which set the nomination to status "Decline" ….jpg|{{../Decline|… . If you now add something new, you must change the status to "Discuss" → ….jpg|{{../Discuss|…. Otherwise the nomination would be automaticity processed as declined by the bot. --Augustgeyler 19:56, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the hint --Georgfotoart 20:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC) added from wrong place by --Augustgeyler 20:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose (Still) too dark and too blurry. Might be fixable with better raw conversion and/or sharpening. --Plozessor 06:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. CA. Removal would also improve sharpness. --Smial 22:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 00:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

File:University_of_Sao_Paulo_campus_2016_009.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Torre do Relógio e Reitoria da Universidade de São Paulo --Mike Peel 06:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --DimiTalen 06:36, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose perspective distortion needs to be fixed. --Augustgeyler 15:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
    • @Augustgeyler: I've redone the perspective, does that look better? Thanks. Mike Peel 17:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Thank you. Perspective is good now. I am sorry not to support now because I think the level of detail is not good enough. But let's see what all the other think about it. --Augustgeyler 18:06, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good rework. --Smial 14:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 00:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Porsche_972_IMG_9537.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Porsche 972 in Böblingen --Alexander-93 18:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment It seems to be out of focus ? --Sebring12Hrs 08:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Out of focus. --Sebring12Hrs 11:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The sharpness is not optimal, but it would be sufficient for me. However, I still don't understand why the colleague squashes his pictures so flat. With normal cropping it would be a nice photo. -- Spurzem 15:40, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 16:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The sharpness is borderline, in this case just below minimum for QI in my opinion. --Augustgeyler 15:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. The depth of field is a little tight, the crop is a little tight, but at least the background in this parking lot photo is not as terribly distracting as in so many others that have already won awards for quality. Sufficient for an A4-size print. --Smial 14:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too blurry. Sorry.--Ermell 22:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 00:08, 19 July 2024 (UTC)