Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 03 2021

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Szczecinek_Bus_Map_(1993).svg[edit]

  • Nomination Daytime and night network of Bus Map in Szczecinek (Poland) at 1993 y. --Maciek r. drewniak 07:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment I think such image should be in SVG format. --Mike1979 Russia 07:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    • ✓ New version I changed and uploded new version of that image in SVG format. --Maciek r. drewniak 10:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good work. --Mike1979 Russia 14:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I uploaded this one with higher resolution. --Maciek r. drewniak 06:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --LexKurochkin 17:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Szczecinek_Bus_Map_(1990).svg[edit]

  • Nomination Daytime and night network of Bus Map in Szczecinek (Poland) at 1990 y. --Maciek r. drewniak 07:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment I think such image should be in SVG format. --Mike1979 Russia 07:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    • ✓ New version I changed and uploded new version of that image in SVG format. --Maciek r. drewniak 10:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
      •  Comment What about not converting the fonts to paths? It could work well with some of the sans fonts available on Commons. The size would be significantly reduced. --Nefronus 11:48, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
        •  Comment Fonts've been changed onto curves becouse in other languages there would be a problem with Polish signs. --Maciek r. drewniak 12:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good work. I think size is normal for vector. You can change it as you like. --Mike1979 Russia 14:35, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I uploaded this one with higher resolution. --Maciek r. drewniak 07:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --LexKurochkin 17:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Hawk_cuckoo_front_Mudumalai_Mar21_DSC01233.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Common hawk-cuckoo (Hierococcyx varius) front, Mudumalai National Park, India --Tagooty 02:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 03:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. poor quality --Charlesjsharp 12:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp/noisy. -- Ikan Kekek 06:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Looks like a rather difficult lighting situation. Considering the obviously required high ISO setting, the result is actually surprisingly good. Printing on A4 is possible in usable quality. --Smial 09:24, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Charlesjsharp. I think there are better pictures of the bird in the category not candidating for QI. —Nefronus 19:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --LexKurochkin 17:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Indian_roller_perching_Mudumalai_Mar21_DSC01236.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Indian roller (Coracias benghalensis), Mudumalai National Park, India --Tagooty 02:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 03:24, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. poor quality --Charlesjsharp 12:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very noisy and also not sharp enough. -- Ikan Kekek 06:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --LexKurochkin 17:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

==[edit]

  • Nomination Textile bag with applications
    --F. Riedelio 14:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Question Do you own the copyright for the bag? a bag itself is not typically copyrightable, but this has separable graphic elements --Rhododendrites 15:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
    •  Comment The textile bag was purchased over the Internet. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find out whether there is a copyright on it. --F. Riedelio 14:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
      •  Oppose Assuming it is not quite old, I think we have to assume it is copyrighted, sorry. Rhododendrites 17:51, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
  • support - The photographed object is a utility item (toiletry bag for children). --F. Riedelio 13:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    •  Comment It is a utility item, but typically we have to consider "separable graphic elements". In this case, the graphic elements are literally separable and seem like the focus of the photo. Still, I will move to discussion to get other opinions. --Rhododendrites 15:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
    • F. Riedelio, the nomination implies support (note the "excluding the nominator" language below). I've replaced the support template with plain text so as not to throw off any bot/counter. Rhododendrites 12:07, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
      •  Comment So, the first attempt to close it was the right one. Now it is closed as declined with the last countable vote on 26 March 2021 --LexKurochkin 17:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, I reverted it back to discussion as undecided. Closing was my mistake --LexKurochkin 07:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --LexKurochkin 17:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

File:Palazzo_Guaineri_Vicolo_san_Pietro_Martire_Brescia.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Palazzo Guaineri on Vicolo san Pietro Martire. --Moroder 09:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --IamMM 08:55, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm not sure about the sky. Its lower part looks burnt. Please discuss. --C messier 20:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
  • @C messier: I'm sure about the sky, it's just uniformly clouded, please look at the histogram --Moroder 11:44, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Disturbing reflections of the windows of the opposite house. --F. Riedelio 13:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't agree. Good quality imo. The reflctions of windows of the opposite house are not a problem. Sebring12Hrs (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have no problem with the reflections, but there are some kind of artifacts on the right toward the top. If this is a stitched photo, maybe they're stitching artifacts. -- Ikan Kekek 19:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Ikan Kekek: Yes, it's a stitched photo. Could you please put a note. Thanks--Moroder 21:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'll try. It's pretty subtle, but I'm seeing a diagonal line that goes down as it goes to the left, with a darker shade below it than above it. -- Ikan Kekek 22:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've checked it on my 32 inches EIZO monitor with different degrees of contrast it's very fine stripes of clouds. BTW the lower part is not overexposed but it's just a uniformely overcast sky. --Moroder 11:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support OK, thanks for checking. -- Ikan Kekek 19:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lots of detail and impressive sharpness, but overprocessed and clipping colour channels. --Smial 19:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
There is no clipping on any channell --Moroder 11:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 Comment Proof by assertion? It is tiring. We've already had this discussion. If I recognize a defect, I will name it and evaluate it accordingly. I will not again spend hours creating proofs, uploading them and then be accused of pixelpeeping. --Smial 12:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 Comment It is pixelpeeping, because the quality of an image is, as I like to point out, the object, the composition, the light, the position of the phocus and and and. Unfortunately, I guess, pixelpeeping, pardon me, is the reason why many people withhold from participating with QIC --Moroder 13:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 Comment Please compare this image with your other of the same subject, taken with only one minute time difference. The other image has rather natural colours in the sky, no very fine stripes of clouds. Also the colour of the wall, windows etc look much more naturally. But of course I cannot judge whether the weather and lighting conditions in Brescia change so much within sixty seconds on a late winter day with a cloudless blue sky. --Smial (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 Comment The photo was taken around the corner with little sky and towards West, while this photo was taken towards South. Surely taking photos against the sun is much more difficult. BTW I checked the raw file and admit that you are right: I corrected the overexposed sky but, as I said, post processing of a relatively little part of the photo is not a sin. Ciao --Moroder 21:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Commonists 12:42, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support May be some valid concerns if/when this is up for FP, but this is an easy support for QI to me. Rhododendrites 15:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The right side has problems; it looks blown to me, and there are artefacts on the metal bars on that side. Also, there's some weird smudging around the power cable.--Peulle 08:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
    •  Comment The burnt sky was darkened in post processing to prevent it from appearing overexposed. This typically results in exactly the unrealistic colour gradients visible here, namely when the individual colour channels clip offset, so to speak. Darkening cannot repair this. --Smial 02:06, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
      • So what? Providing it was darkened, it’s not a capital sin, or do you want condemn all post processing?cheers--Moroder 07:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
        • "So what"? An image with fake colours should not be QI, that simple. --Smial 08:55, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
          • Fake colours like fake news? C'mon Smial. Where are all these images with "right" colours. I insist, photography is an interpretation of reality and, please, don't tell me, that this photo does not show something. Yea the sky might be a little bit wrong off (so what?). Cheers --Moroder 21:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, per Smial. --Milseburg 12:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, per Smial. --Ermell 20:11, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, per Smial. --Nefronus 19:47, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 7 oppose → Declined   --LexKurochkin 17:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)