Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 17 2024

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Εκπαιδευτήρια_Μπαχλιτζανάκη_2484.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The former Bahlitzanakis school, Piraeus. --C messier 20:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry, but due to intense perspective correction the proportions of that building apear too annatural. --Augustgeyler 21:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • More opinions please. --C messier 04:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral. But I agree with Augustgeyler. -- Spurzem 08:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I agree with the too strong distortion, but this should be fixable by skewing it (making the right side lower/smaller). --Plozessor 03:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler -- Екатерина Борисова 03:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree. Also, the base of the image has been a little over cropped for me. Bahnfrend (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me --PaestumPaestum 16:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

File:A85_along_Oban_coast_at_blue_hour.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: The A85 road along the coast in Oban, Scotland, at dusk. --Grendelkhan 07:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --N. Johannes 15:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please, fix the perspective to get verticals vertical (see right side) --Poco a poco 17:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Fixed the perspective. Grendelkhan 05:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Better, there is a slight cw tilt and a bit of noise but overall I move to  Neutral now Poco a poco 19:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, lack of detail, halos around the object. Not bad for a night shot with a smartphone, but IMO not good enough for a QI. --Plozessor 14:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support A very nice, sharp, sufficiently detailed, blue hour image. I can't see any halos. Bahnfrend (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose have to agree with Plozessor here. The sky is very nice though. --MB-one 07:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Dolfin-Wappen.svg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Coat of Arms of the House of Dolfin (Count)--ZuppaDiCarlo 12:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Ashoppio 12:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am very conflicted,can such a small image be of quality? I would like to hear an opinion from others as well. Thank you. --GoldenArtists 13:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Since it is a SVG file the resolution doesn't count. Ashoppio 16:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support We had these discussions in the past, and there seems to be no rule that QI must be photos. This vector image seems to be good does not have any defects (I can't judge if it fully matches the original Coat of Arms though). --Plozessor 04:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strange colours, strange proportions, the "gold" does not shine, nothing is reminiscent of the historical originals, except that the number of table tennis balls on the count's crown and the other elements of the coat of arms are correct. In addition, the file is 1.4MB in size, which is quite a lot for a vector graphic, the advantage of which is supposed to be that it can be scaled to any size with a small file size. --Smial 12:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hi, I'm the author of the coat of arms. I don't know if you're familiar with the field of vectorized coats of arms (.SVG), but what you described seems like a comment written by a person who doesn't know the term "heraldry". 1) Strange colours: The colors chosen derive from the color palette of User:Sodacan, the greatest herald of Wikipedia and now the stylistic standard of the platform; 2) strange proportions: the proportions are based on the image I put in the sources in the file description, so it's not a concrete problem; 3) "gold" does not shine: until they create holograms for the heraldic representation of metals, every heraldist limits himself to the predefined reference colors (yellow=gold, grey=silver, and so on); 4) nothing recalls the historical originals: stylistic freedom exists in heraldry, the important thing is that the subjects and elements present are the same, without adding or deleting anything; 5) the file is 1.4MB in size: I will lower it to 1 megabyte. --ZuppaDiCarlo 17:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Jakubhal 05:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support It is an SVG, level of detail is good. --Augustgeyler 21:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Appropriate credit should be given to the SVG elements you used. E.g. the fish are from File:Coat of Arms of the House of Dolfin.svg but those are not listed anywhere in the description. I also wonder why you chose a depiction of the griffins with short tails when they have long, lion-like tails in all the source images or why both wings are pointed up when in all the source images they have one wing pointed up and one down. ReneeWrites 08:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done The source thing is done, by the way, sa I told to the other, there is free stylistic form for the blazon (please read in the file desc {coa blazon}) --ZuppaDiCarlo 11:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
      • Where exactly can I find the blazoning text? --Smial 11:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
        • If you mean the template {coa blazon}, below the author of the file, near the section "other versions". --ZuppaDiCarlo 17:21, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment still not one third party source to verify the coat of arms is the same as the actual coat of arms, just links to other images on commons Gnangarra 15:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done I writed the historical source of the Coat of Arms, from the tables of the Armorial of the families of the Habsburg Empire. --ZuppaDiCarlo 22:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Smial --PaestumPaestum 16:57, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)