Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 27 2024

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Common_Snipe_facts.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Common Snipe (Gallinago gallinago) Squat, cryptically-plumaged shorebird with a very long bill. Inhabits a wide range of wetland habitats, from damp meadows to saltmarshes. Mostly inconspicuous, feeding in muddy ground by probing with its bill, usually near reeds or other grassy cover. Often not seen until flushed, when it usually rises from fairly close range with a rough rasping call. This Bird was photographed at Gujarat, India. By User:Shiv's fotografia --Satdeep Gill 12:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --El Golli Mohamed 13:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Inconsistent quality. The background looks blurred, but then there's a patch left of the tail that appears a lot more detailed. On the back there's feathers that partway through lose their texture and turn completely smooth. ReneeWrites 15:12, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per ReneeWrites, this seems either AI-processed or massively retouched, it doesn't look natural. --Plozessor 17:42, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Smial 18:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 23:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Candela_Seven,_Interboot_2020,_Friedrichshafen_(IB200010).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Candela Seven (foils retracted) at Interboot 2020, Friedrichshafen --MB-one 20:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Rear of the boat is cut. --Sebring12Hrs 19:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO the aft of the boat isn't necessary here. The main subject are the foils, which are dead center. I could rework the description if that helps. --MB-one 09:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, showing one aspect of a boat. --Tagooty 10:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality is good, cut is ok IMO. --Plozessor 17:45, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 23:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

File:The_common_green_magpie_in_flgiht.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination the common green magpie in flgiht. By User:Prasan Shrestha --Nirmal Dulal 08:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --NoSmoker 10:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC) Vote invalid. Voter's account is less than 10 days and 50 edits. --Augustgeyler 08:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment As with baya weaver image, needs better categorizatoin and image description per COM:QIC Image Page Requirements (3) to have the best utility in Commons going forward. --GRDN711 12:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info This should be switched to consensual review. --Augustgeyler 14:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing is sharp, the level of blur is different in different areas (AI processed?), and halos around the bird. --Plozessor 07:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Plozessor. Texture on the left wing makes me suspect AI processing too. Even if the original would not meet QI requirements I think a blurry but authentic picture would be better. ReneeWrites 17:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I feel not competent enough in wildlife photography to tell if this can be QI or not. I just want to point out that I like the image and the way it captures the birds flight. --Augustgeyler 16:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I like that aspect as well, it's a beautiful picture. But QI is more about images meeting technical requirements. ReneeWrites 20:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 22:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

File:The_baya_weaver_with_nesting_material.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination the baya weaver with nesting material. By User:Prasan Shrestha --Nirmal Dulal 08:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --NoSmoker 11:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC) Vote invalid. Voter's account is less than 10 days and 50 edits. --Augustgeyler 08:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment This image is QI quality but per COM:QIC Image Page Requirements (3), needs better documentation if you want it to have long term utility in Commons going forward. Categorization for birds should be down to the sub-species level if known. Is it a male Ploceus philippinus philippinus? If so, the image description needs to reflect that along with the nesting material behavior. Approximate location description and GPS coordinates would also be useful. --GRDN711 12:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info This should be switched to consensual review. --Augustgeyler 14:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The image's been properly categorized now. No location data is known apparently, but that's not a hard QI requirement. ReneeWrites 17:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The purpose of the image is to illustrate a bird species + typical behavior trait for long term encyclopedia use. To that end, location is important. Many of the species/sub-species are defined and identified by geographic location as one delimiter. IMHO approximate location description and GPS coordinates would be best, but will accept a good description of the location if approximate GPS coordinates are not known. --GRDN711 01:03, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
     Comment Hi GRDN711, coordinates and description added by author. thanks! -- Nirmal Dulal 06:13, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Withdraw my oppose and now support this QI nomination with the additional documentation. --GRDN711 00:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 16:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Губаницы,_кирха_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint John the Baptist lutheran church in Gubanitsy, Leningrad Oblast, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 02:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Slightly leaning out on the right side. --Plozessor 03:39, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I checked it out by looking at the basement of the church. It's not leaning. perhaps the leaning is an optical illusion arising from the angle of shooting. --Екатерина Борисова 02:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Added three image notes to objects that are clearly not vertical in the picture. Please check (of course it is possible that these are not vertical in reality). --Plozessor 07:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I see your notes, great thanks for the work done. But it seems to me that QI project is not about these millimeters of deviations from verticals. I don't mean just this photo, but also many others that are commented on in a similar way. Of course visible and disturbing distortions should be corrected but not those that do not affect the overall impression. It's just my opinion and I won't argue if you decline my photo. Thanks again for your attention. --Екатерина Борисова 02:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I am with you regarding that only "visible and disturbing distortions should be corrected", however, in that case, it IS clearly 'visible and disturbing' for me. I saw the picture for the first time and my impression was immediately that something is off with the perspective. --Plozessor 08:00, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support This is not vertical at the millimeter, but I think it's acceptable. It needs more opinions. --Sebring12Hrs 08:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose The right side is clearly not sharp enough. --Sebring12Hrs 11:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't mind the vertices, but the sharpness in full resolution is a bit to blurry for QI. --Milseburg 11:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support We should not overdo. If I compare to many other QIs than this is very good. -- Spurzem 21:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 22:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)