Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 07 2024

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:ممارسة_رياضة_الركمجة_بشاطئ_بوزنيقة.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Surfing at Bouznika Beach BW. --User:Mounir Neddi 12:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Horizon is tilted cw and needs correction. --Milseburg 14:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC))
  • ✓ DoneUser:Mounir Neddi 14:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you Better now. Some spots in the sky have to be fixed. It could be also sharper. I'm not sure if a color version would be better here. What's the use of black/white? --Milseburg 14:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC) I don't keep the color version unfortunately. User:Mounir Neddi 20:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose To me b/w isn't working here. Too unsharp too and spots are remaining. Sorry. --Milseburg 17:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry, grainy, at least one dust spot. No description and questionable b/w. --Plozessor 04:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --BigDom 02:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Washington,_D.C.,_September_21,_2024_-_066.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Frederick Douglass Memorial Hall, Washington, D.C. --Another Believer 01:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs PC. Poor crop on the top. --Tagooty 03:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose PC and crop. --Sebring12Hrs 08:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective, crop, sharpness. --Plozessor 04:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --BigDom 02:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Altstädter_Rathaus.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Goldsmiths' House (former old town hall) in Hanau --Milseburg 13:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment The bicycle on the bottom left should be cropped. Otherwise very good --MB-one 14:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment Cropping or retouching the bicycle in the lower left is possible, but is it really that relevant for the quality? It has no bearing on the subject of the picture at all. --Milseburg 09:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
      • To me it appears as a distraction. But maybe you would like to hear what others think. --MB-one 20:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
        • Okay, I send it into CR. As far as I know, it is acceptable for a QI to have cropped objects at the edge that have nothing to do with the actual subject. Especially in narrow cities, it is usually unavoidable to cut out houses, cars, trees, etc. --Milseburg 18:13, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The bicycle in the lower left is hardly visible in the shadows. Hence, I do not find it distracting. This is QI to me. --AFBorchert 07:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The bicycles are not a problem at all. The dark shadows and the gable wall that is too bright are not attractive. I don't want to judge whether the photo is still a QI. -- Spurzem 08:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good sharpness, perspective ok to me. The shadows are a bit dark, but still ok, and the bicycles are hidden in those shadows, I think it's good enough. --Sebring12Hrs 10:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I'd skew it a bit (make the right side lower), but it's still acceptable as is for me. --Plozessor 04:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom 02:52, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Rosa_Polarstern_2023-06-10_7249.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A white rose in Szczecin, Poland (by Salicyna) --Gpkp 10:27, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Kritzolina 15:47, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. There is hardly anything in focus (may be one of the water drops) and there are some lens reflections. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Robert. BigDom (talk) 07:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunate lighting, lack sharpness -- Spurzem 09:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DoF too small (hardly anything sharp). --Plozessor 12:48, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --BigDom 02:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

File:2024Apr_-_Nanjing_-_East_Zhonghua_Gate_中华东门_-_img_04.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: East Zhonghua Gate, Nanjing --Chainwit. 18:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Needs perspective correction. --C messier 18:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the wall on the right is actually slanted. Therefore, for me, QI. -- Spurzem 20:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
  • My reference points were the verticals that the slated butresses connect to the gate wall. --C messier 06:34, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment From the buildings in background, it seems that verticals are almost but not fully correct. However, overall quality isn't perfect, too. --Plozessor 12:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --BigDom 02:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Санкт-Петербург,_особняк_Румянцева,_парадная_лестница,_балюстрада.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Balustrade of the main stairs. Interiors and exhibition of Rumyantsev mansion. 44, Angliyskaya embankment, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Красный 09:25, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 14:42, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not so sharp at the edges, please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 22:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose We can demand better sharpness for a static object like this. The camera settings (f/18, 3200 ISO, 1/5sec) won't have helped here. BigDom 03:23, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per BigDom. --Plozessor 12:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --BigDom 02:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Refectory_at_the_Ağoğlan_Monastery.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Refectory at the Ağoğlan Monastery --Golden 22:06, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support DoF is not optimal (the back parts are a bit blurry), but still ok. --Plozessor 05:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Out of focus at left. --Sebring12Hrs 17:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO sharp enough for QI --Michielverbeek 22:27, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. --Tournasol7 06:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks OK at small sizes due to smartphone magic, but even on the 2560*1920 preview the OOF areas and lack of detail are obvious. BigDom 02:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --BigDom 02:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Mandefjild,_19-08-2024_(d.j.b)_05.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Flowering heather (Mandefjild nature reserve near Bakkeveen)--Famberhorst 05:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 06:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice image, but the sky is too violet and needs WB to be checked IMO. --Екатерина Борисова 01:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC).
  • If you disagree, go to discuss. But you shouldn't cancel a promotion vote. --Sebring12Hrs 10:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support new version is ok --Georgfotoart 09:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Quite grainy, and purple-ish sky. --Plozessor 10:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Plozessor. --BigDom 02:55, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support the latest version. BigDom 02:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. Purple glow removed. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst 05:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Appears good to me now. --Cayambe 07:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok now. --Plozessor 13:00, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom 02:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)