Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 29 2021

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Cirrochroa_thais_06.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cirrochroa thais. Tamil yeoman butterfly; from Kerala, India --Vis M 15:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Sorry! Not sharp enough. The leaf is sharper then the butterfly. --Steindy 19:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
     Support Yes, the leaf is sharp, but the focal plane also goes through the butterfly’s eyes. QI for me. --Nefronus 00:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Agreed, sharp enough. -- Ikan Kekek 10:07, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Chiesa_di_San_Bernardino_San_Nepomuceno_Salò.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Painting of the Saint John of Nepomuk. --Moroder 09:20, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
    The top and bottom edges of the frame are blurred. Is the bluish "rain shower" on the right part of the painting? or unwanted reflections? --Tagooty 15:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    •  Comment Thanks for your review. The painting was hanging high in the church and I had to do a strong perspective correction. Therefor the upper and lower margins at different distance and are a little bit out of focus because the image is focused in the middle. Reflections are almost inevitable in oil paintings and its difficult to find the right angle. The blue light is a mix of daylight and artificial illumination. --Moroder 14:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The perspective correction was done well and the reflection is okay, but I see some dead pixels (fixable) and motion blur (unfixable unfortunately, sorry). --Nefronus 22:13, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
    •  Comment I'can't be a motion blur (which would be all over the picture) because I used a tripod and delayed release and i'm not aware of any earthquakes at the time ;-). Cheers --Moroder 07:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
      •  CommentSorry, I did not read the exposition info that carefully, so I delete my oppose. Still, there might have been a movement even with the tripod. I shall let others decide. --Nefronus 10:57, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
    •  Comment The motion blur is visible all over the image and even in the surrounding. --Smial 14:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Thanks for the explanations. PC is ok. I get the reason for the reflections and appreciate the difficulty in this shot. However, IMO the reflections make it not a QI. --Tagooty 04:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Motion blur resp. double contours by camera shake. --Smial 09:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 20:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Rúa_Manuel_Murguía.001_-_A_Coruña.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Street sign of Rúa Manuel Murguía, in A Coruña (Galicia, Spain). --Drow male 10:28, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • No metadata available. --F. Riedelio 16:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, metadata are not required for QI. --Nefronus 22:10, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am not sure if the metadata (EXIF data) is necessary. Maybe this can be clarified in the discussion? --F. Riedelio 06:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Exif data are not mandatory. --Palauenc05 09:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment The original version had EXIF data, but it lost them when I modified the picture. I don't know how to do it better, sorry. -- Drow male 13:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Bore_Turku.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Bore (ship, 1960) in Turku. --Kallerna 04:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Knopik-som 04:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Regretfully, I disagree. The sail boat in the foreground is unnecessary and detracts from the ship. --GRDN711 22:23, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for sure. --Selbymay 10:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't object to the sailboat. Nothing much you can do about it and it's good for scale. Rodhullandemu 11:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per Rod. -- Ikan Kekek 21:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment The photographer could have waited five minutes until the sail boat had gone by. Without knowing the height of the sail boat and triangulation, the sail boat does not tell you the height of the ship. Also, cutting off the masts of the ship was not necessary and does not support a QI rating. --GRDN711 21:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is not VIC, and I don't buy the idea that we should be enforcing only one kind of view of a ship. -- Ikan Kekek 23:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support QI. Remark: The idea “the photographer could have waited …” is good, yes, but often it doesn’t work as expected because 5 min later much more distracting things or people can be in the frame ;–). I have often waited half hours and sometimes even a complete hour for a single shot of a beautiful building, without getting the distraction-free view I wanted. --Aristeas 08:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Amorphophallus_dracontioides_selon_les_stades_phénologiques_autour_du_complexe_Pendjari._03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Amorphophallus dracontioides selon les stades phénologiques autour du complexe Pendjari (by AMADOU BAHLEMAN FARID) --Adoscam 14:48, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline Good quality.--MaedaAkihiko 11:39, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
     Oppose Not created by a Commons user. --F. Riedelio 15:47, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
    @F. Riedelio: Why do you say that? Rodhullandemu 19:28, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Rodhullandemu: There is a redlink in the nominations (the user account "Farid AMADOU BAHLEMAN" is not registered). According to the image guidelines, quality image candidates must have been created by a Commons user. --F. Riedelio 06:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
    @F. Riedelio, I think it only means that the user hasn’t created a page, but since has a username, they must be registered on WP globally. It’s a matter of interpretation of the rules. --Nefronus 07:50, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
     Comment @F. Riedelio: No user is required to have a user page. But if you look into it, he has made contributions. That, to me, makes him a Commons user. Rodhullandemu 08:42, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think that's debatable. If you've made contributions, you're a Commoner, period. -- Ikan Kekek 21:11, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Maybe the user name in the “Nominations” section was misspelled “AMADOU BAHLEMAN FARID” instead of “Farid AMADOU BAHLEMAN”. --F. Riedelio 06:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

ːːː* In fact the error came from me. the user is indeed registered under the name of AMADOU BAHLEMAN FARID and not Farid AMADOU BAHLEMAN.--Adoscam 18:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

  •  Oppose And he has a userpage now. However, I think the fruit, though pretty well photographed, is too dark. -- Ikan Kekek 00:27, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No description. The filename alone is not enough. Also slight underexposure, possibly fixable. --Smial 10:05, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 20:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

̈

File:Smoking,_Bo-Kaap,_Cape_Town_(P1060001).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Man smoking outside a coffee shop in Bo-Kaap, Cape Town --MB-one 21:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Did the person agree that this photo may end up on the Internet? --Hillopo2018 08:45, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think we can all agree that there's no expectation of privacy in public places. Rodhullandemu 15:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment In what you agree with is not important, read the QI-guidelines: Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people: as you can read here: The subject's consent is usually needed for publishing a photograph of an identifiable individual. This photograph does not work if there is agreement with the person sitting there. --Hillopo2018 08:48, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 06:05, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Knopik-som 03:10, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)