Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 26 2024

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Hills_of_Phuket.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Thailand. Panorama of a group of hills on the island of Phuket taken from the top of the Big Buddha
  • Decline
  •  Comment Beautiful photograph, but I'd like to confirm its authenticity. I sent you a DM on Instagram. ReneeWrites 20:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Thanks for getting back to me so quickly! Good quality. --ReneeWrites 14:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Regarding the camera used image height in very low for a panorama and the quality is not good enough for QI. --Milseburg 11:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low height, low contrast,  Level of detail too low --Plozessor 16:06, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. This looks both oversharpened and lacking in detail, presumably due to excessive noise reduction. The narrower image edge of a panorama should have at least 2000 pixels. --Smial 19:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --August Geyler (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Sts_Peter_&_Paul_church_in_Baja_(6).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sts Peter and Paul church in Baja, Bács-Kiskun County, Hungary. --Tournasol7 04:07, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quality is good, but the church looks unnatural because the correction of distortion is too strong --Екатерина Борисова 17:39, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Distortion, bad light (underexposed). --Kallerna 07:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 10:36, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per other opponents. The distortion is too bad here. --Augustgeyler 13:42, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed and distorted -- Spurzem 21:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 22:22, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Sasanian_art_in_Hermitage_by_Darafsh_S-271_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Cup with Cosmological Subjects. By User:Darafsh --Lvova 06:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality -- Spurzem 10:56, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This was cropped in too much resulting in  Level of detail too low. --Augustgeyler 11:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose for now. In general it's not a good idea to take pictures of very small objects inside buildings with smartphones. The level of detail here is borderline, however, it's cropped too tight at the sides, that doesn't look good IMO. Give it a bit more space to breathe to the left and right and I might support it. --Plozessor 05:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I tried to fix. Lvova 09:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sometimes the only way to take a picture of a museum object for Wikimedia projects is to do it with smartphone, because it is often forbidden to shoot on good cameras in museums. -- Екатерина Борисова 21:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Thx, still borderline but just about acceptable for me. --Plozessor 15:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Some objects simply can't be taken at QI level by visitors of exhibitions. --Augustgeyler 08:48, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Can you say specifically what is bad about the picture? If I compare it to some of the others that are being hyped up here, it is an excellent shot. The sharpness is good, the color is good, no distracting surroundings, well placed. What more could we want for QI? -- Spurzem 12:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I can not tell why others voted for other nominations I do not know. I can just say, that I can not call this image QI because it is showing less detail as we can see on proper macro images here on wikimedia. To "specifically" give you an example we would need to compare the same object taken with a macro lens or something similar with 1:1 ratio (object to sensor) and then compare the results with this nomination here. As we can't do so I totally respect your opinion but have to stick to my oppose. --Augustgeyler 16:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --August Geyler (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)