Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 12 2023

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Snowy_landscape,_Mount_Ziria,_Greece.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Snowy landscape with snow-covered trees after a blizzard. --Νικόλαος Κυριακάκης 8:17, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 13:15, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. The branches are full of artefacts of oversharpening. --Augustgeyler 15:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler. --Smial 09:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good image, perhaps not excellent, but enough for QI -- Spurzem 11:01, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler. --Mister rf 00:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 03:55, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 09:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Berkåk_stasjon_3.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Train arriving to Berkåk Station. --Kallerna 15:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  CommentGood image. But please ad some information and / or categories about the train, the railway company or the locomotive. --Augustgeyler 16:58, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment "El 18 in NSB gray and silver livery" is not enough? --Kallerna 08:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --JoachimKohler-HB 18:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As stated above this image needs a description and categorization about the train. --Augustgeyler 22:31, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
    •  Support Sorry, I did not realize you allready added that information. Good description now. --Augustgeyler 15:39, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good composition and good quality. I think we have many pictures for instance of cars without the name of the special model, year of construction, details about the engine and so on. -- Spurzem 15:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. I'll trust you that the sky doesn't look a bit greener than it was. Should the red-linked category be removed? -- Ikan Kekek 03:45, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me --Halavar 21:38, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good Quality.  Question The locomotive has w:Statens Järnvägar instead of NSB markings. Yet I can't find any information about SJ operating SLM-ABB Lok 2000s. Does anybody know more about that? --MB-one 07:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about the details, but NSB have changed their name to "Vy" anyway, so NSB don't exist anymore.--Peulle 07:30, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 09:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Seattle_metropolitan_area,_April_2023_-_171.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Downtown Seattle, Washington, U.S. --Another Believer 02:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 02:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose perspective distortion visible and overall low level of detail. --Augustgeyler 13:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak  Oppose: level of detail is OK, but perspective correction is expected. -- Ikan Kekek 17:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good image. I cannot see why perspective corection should be necessary or is expected. -- Spurzem 18:46, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective correction is needed here. --Sebring12Hrs 09:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI, perspective correction should not be overdone. --Palauenc05 20:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs --Mister rf 00:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 09:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Seattle_metropolitan_area,_April_2023_-_172.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Downtown Seattle, Washington, U.S. --Another Believer 02:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 02:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is rotated cw and perspective distortion are visible. Overall it has low level of detail. --Augustgeyler 13:32, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm undecided about the level of detail, but the rotation is quite evident. -- Ikan Kekek 17:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. I don't see what perspective you mean. -- Spurzem 18:48, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ikan, the details aren't very good and the perspective isn't corrected. --Sebring12Hrs 11:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment. Some time ago, this kind of incomprehensible criticism was the reason for me not to present any more pictures here. Sometimes I wonder which failed pictures are highly praised, while other times very good photos are smashed. For example, I don't understand where you're seeing crooked or rotating lines affecting the quality of the image. -- Spurzem 13:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment I do not agree. I can not see "incomprehensible" arguments here. It is a clear and simple thing to easily find out that the verticals of the buildings are not straight. Just look to the edges of the central buildings. They are rotated cw. This might be due to perspective distortion or a rotation of the image. --Augustgeyler 18:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for QI. --Palauenc05 19:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Considering it as a mobile photo, it's OK to me. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 03:46, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Question Do we lower our standards when a photo is taken using a mobile phone? If so, why? I thought we were supposed to judge photos by the standard of what could be expected from a good-quality photo the year they were taken in a given situation that could include difficulty of photographing a bird in flight, etc., but not that the nominated photo happened to be taken with a mobile phone. -- Ikan Kekek 09:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • It's not about lowering the standards, even though I was confused with the level of details when I zoomed too much but it was acceptable when zoomed to 175% of the page. But the device might have affected my decision so I'll move to  Neutral.--Fabian Roudra Baroi (talk) 03:44, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  • It’s not a matter of personal tastes, there are certain deficiencies in the technical category that are not respected, and could be corrected. Being neutral to this kind of error means that we accept it as a general rule for other photos, and then, what is the purpose of choosing QI? --Mister rf 07:20, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  • I just expressed my opinion which is based on certain deficiencies in the technical category, I know it lacks details and needs a slight CW rotation. My vote is for the overall picture (except details) which is acceptable to me after fixing the rotation, also encouragement. I'm not opposing as it won't be a deciding vote. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 23:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler --Mister rf 00:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unvavorable crop --Milseburg 14:15, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 15:39, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Castillo_de_Praga,_Praga,_República_Checa,_2022-07-02,_DD_210.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Prague Castle, Prague, Czech Republic --Poco a poco 06:08, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 06:21, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too distorted for me. Both sides are leaning out + puple CAs bottom right. Sorry. --Milseburg 09:06, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Milseburg. -- Ikan Kekek 17:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Update coming this evening CET Poco a poco 07:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
  • ✓ Fixed, sorry, I didn't make it yesterday --Poco a poco 14:38, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 18:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I still see CA on the left side. I imagine cleaning all of that up is a hard task. -- Ikan Kekek 01:36, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I like ! But per Ikan... --Sebring12Hrs 12:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment ✓ New version Poco a poco 21:23, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose New version looks much better. Perspective correction is done and CAs is removed but unfortunately there is still one big problem to me - far left and far right sides of the picture are very blurred and not sharp enough. I recommend crop these blurred parts. --Halavar 21:30, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
  • To me it doesn't look that bad given the file resolution. Poco a poco 17:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I'm OK with the current version, although there's what might be a dust spot a bit right of upper left. -- Ikan Kekek 09:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that it was a dust spot, but I removed it anyhow. Poco a poco 17:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Question Looks good enough for me now for QI. I know that coordinates are not a requirement. But here they would be nice regarding the question of whether it is an aerial photograph. --Milseburg 12:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Milseburg: I created a new category to make clear from where the picture was taken Poco a poco 17:57, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good enough to me. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 02:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support a bit unsharp towards the edges. But overall good enough for QI. --Milseburg 14:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 15:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)