Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 29 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Lahm_b_Lichtenfels_Kruzifix-20200809-RM-154941.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Crucifix with war memorial in Lahm near Lichtenfels --Ermell 06:05, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 06:26, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose technically ok, but the background is disturbing --Augustgeyler 07:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support The background is a little bit disturbing, may be f/5.6 would be a solution. But IMO it is QI. --XRay 08:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted XRay 09:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Capteur_de_glycémie_pour_personnes_diabétiques.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Blood sugat tester--Celeda 05:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Its telling more about the capet than the objects --Augustgeyler 09:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I don't understand your sentence. According to my dictionary "capet" is not an English word? For Augustgeyler, cool to answer me, I should have guessed! It's not a carpet but a towel--Celeda 07:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry: I meant „carpet“.--Augustgeyler 17:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC) 05:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Burwood_war_memorial,_Christchurch,_Canterbury,_New_Zealand_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Burwood war memorial, Christchurch, Canterbury --Podzemnik 04:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 06:54, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose object in the right corner is disturbing --Augustgeyler 11:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I agree on this one. That post really spoils the look of an otherwise good image.--Peulle 07:59, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Minor composition issue. Traffic signs, street markings also disturb... Technically ok. --Smial 12:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. --Ermell 12:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted XRay 18:22, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Burwood_war_memorial,_Christchurch,_Canterbury,_New_Zealand_04.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Burwood war memorial, Christchurch, Canterbury --Podzemnik 04:16, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. May be a touch too warm. --XRay 06:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose background is not good, there is also some distortion --Augustgeyler 11:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Question Where and what kind of distortion? I would tend to support, on the basis that if you want to see those names and see the whole monument from that side, that's the background, and some concessions have to be made to reality. -- Ikan Kekek 08:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support what other option is there besides extensive retouching work?--Ermell 12:44, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted XRay 18:24, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

File:McBratneys_Rd,_Dallington,_Christchurch,_Canterbury,_New_Zealand.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination McBratneys Rd, Dallington --Podzemnik 08:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 09:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Technically well done. But I am sorry, I can not see what this picture is giving »valuable for Wikimedia«. --Augustgeyler 21:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Vote withdrawn. You confinced me.--Augustgeyler 16:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • It's not Wikipedia and it must not have a value for Wikimedia. Commons is an archive of media and the photograph fulfills the goal of the project. --XRay 04:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Augustgeyler: Usefulness is not a criterion here. This is QIC, where we judge technical quality. Also, Wikimedia is about building up a depository of images; we have no way of knowing which images will be valuable in the future. Please consult the Guidelines or ask us if you have any questions on how to judge images. --Peulle 08:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Peulle @XRay: You are opposing to my opinion this might not be a valuable motif. Of course I try to follow the guidelines. Point 2.1.7 states: „Our main goal is to encourage quality images [...], valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.“ – Quality_images_candidates#Value. What am I getting wrong about it?--Augustgeyler 08:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • It may be a little bit a misunderstanding. This photographs shows the McBratneys Road in Christchurch. So that is a good and valuable image. Most of the images are valuable because there are a lot of good reasons to use the photographs. (And it can be used everywhere, not only in the Wikimedia world.) Not valuable are party photos or all the typical social media photographs. --XRay 12:06, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, and a view down a street could easily be useful for an encyclopedia, anyway. -- Ikan Kekek 08:28, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted XRay 09:47, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Belfield_St,_Dallington,_Christchurch,_Canterbury,_New_Zealand.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Belfield St, Dallington --Podzemnik 08:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 09:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Technically well done. But I am sorry, I can not see what this picture is giving »valuable for Wikimedia«. --August Geyler 21:59, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Vote withdrawn. You confinced me.--August Geyler 16:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • It's not Wikipedia and it must not have a value for Wikimedia. Commons is an archive of media and the photograph fulfills the goal of the project. --XRay 04:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • @Augustgeyler: Usefulness is not a criterion here. This is QIC, where we judge technical quality. Also, Wikimedia is about building up a depository of images; we have no way of knowing which images will be valuable in the future. Please consult the Guidelines or ask us if you have any questions on how to judge images. --Peulle 08:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality and potentially even encyclopedically useful per above. -- Ikan Kekek 08:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted XRay 09:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Banco_conmemorativo,_plaza_de_San_Francisco,_Badajoz,_España,_2020-07-22,_DD_74.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Commemorative bench, San Francisco square, Badajoz, Spain --Poco a poco 05:58, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose good picture, but not a quality one: missing true shadows and dynamic range --Augustgeyler 09:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, a good picture. -- Ikan Kekek 08:33, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Enough shadow for me.--Ermell 12:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted XRay 18:26, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Salema_(Sarpa_salpa),_Setúbal,_Portugal,_2020-08-01,_DD_15.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Salema porgy (Sarpa salma), Setúbal, Portugal --Poco a poco 06:00, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose that perspective with that light background makes it impossible to so the main objects --Augustgeyler 09:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • There is no requirement about that, the porgies have a bright color close to the sand, but is that a reason to oppose? --Poco a poco 19:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it is. --Augustgeyler 08:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I can see them. It's harder to see things through water than through air. I think this is a solid QI, considering that. -- Ikan Kekek 08:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Not an easy picture to make but well done.--Ermell 12:58, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted XRay 18:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Widok_z_Kałkowa_na_Jezioro_Wióry_20200815_1038_0988.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View of Wióry Lake from Kałków village --Jakubhal 04:12, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose well composed, but too much haze --Augustgeyler 09:21, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • It is not a requirement for a QI to have super-clear sky and I would like to check what others think about it --Jakubhal 17:51, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO OK. The haze is not a problem. --XRay 04:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Perfectly OK, per others. Haze can be a reason to oppose a nominee for FP, but this is QIC. -- Ikan Kekek 08:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted XRay 09:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Charleroi_-_Immeuble_ERCO_-_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Charleroi (Belgique) - Immeuble ERCO situé au quai Paul Verlaine n° 9. Construit en 1951-1952 par l'architecte Adolphe Staatje de Bruxelles pour la société ERCO de Jean Regniers. Actuellement occupé par l'hôtel Ibis. --Jmh2o 19:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment leaning to the left --Celeda 15:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I use de windows for the correction --Jmh2o 06:50, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support It's OK --Celeda 14:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose We should talk about it. For a qualtiy picture I am missing some good light comming from the side --Augustgeyler 09:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment (Je ne traduit pas par Google pour garder les nuances). La photo a été prise un 28 décembre un peu après 3 heures de l'après-midi. Le temps était très clair mais la lumière du soleil légère voilée par des nuages. Une lumière ne produisant quasiment pas d'ombres. J'ai profité de cette lumière et aussi qu'à cette saison il n'y a pas de feuilles sur les arbres. J'ai pris la photo à distance au 50 mm, donc quasiment sans distorsions. Mais peut-être qu'elle manque effectivement de qualité... --Jmh2o 06:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support C'est bien a mon avis. Solid QI. -- Ikan Kekek 08:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted XRay 09:44, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Чарские_Пески._Чудо-природы.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The smallest desert in the world (5x10 km) - Charsky Sands. Kodar, Zabaikalsky Krai, Russia. August 2014 --Veteran hiker 07:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality --Michielverbeek 07:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but there are jpeg-artefacts above the horizon (left) and in the blue sky above the trees. They should be fixed. --PtrQs 01:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see any jpg artefacts. Seven Pandas 20:58, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The artifacts mentioned by PtrQs are pretty transparent but quite evident. Look for ghost leaves above the tree and strange clear ripples above the horizon at the left side. This photo should not be promoted without edits to remove these defects. -- Ikan Kekek 21:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, compression artifacts and again oversharpening combined with denoising. This may be a result of the repeated demand for noise-free images here on QIC. After denoising, the images often look blurred, so the sharpness slider is used to correct this, but in fact it is made worse. Btw: probably somewhat high colour saturaton, but beautiful composition and lighting. --Smial 10:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, due to compression artifacts I have to say no. Could you upload a better compressed version?--Augustgeyler 08:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others.--Peulle 07:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Münster,_Hafen,_Liebesschlösser_--_2020_--_8246.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Love padlocks in the port of Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:43, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 03:58, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree.Perspective and time of day (or sun position) unsuitable. --Ichwarsnur 12:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I can't see any problem, perspective or sun position. It's a contre-jour photograph, the sun is part of the composition. --XRay 06:41, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per XRay. Good photo. -- Ikan Kekek 21:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support In this case, the reflections and overexposures are clearly part of the image composition and should not be considered a technical error. --Smial 10:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposure might be part of the picture, but the lines in the foreground do interact badly with the horizon--Augustgeyler 11:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Jakubhal 12:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree August. Seven Pandas 20:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment XRay nominated so many (better) variants of this motive. I think we should not choose this one but the others.--Augustgeyler 22:17, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment For the record, on QIC, the number of other photos of a given motif is not a criterion in whether a photo should pass or not. I realize you have other objections to this photo, but I thought it was important to state this fact. -- Ikan Kekek 01:19, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Just a hint: QI isn't VI. And if you look for the best of all, please have a look to FP. --XRay 04:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I do know that this is not FP. And I just commented about the number of other given pictures of that motif to demonstrate that it was possible to find a much better angle to avoid those interacting lines between fore- and background.--Augustgeyler 07:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:36, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Rocca_da_Punta_Sasso_a_Manerba_del_Garda.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination La Rocca peak from the Punta SassoManerba del Garda. --Moroder 14:40, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 21:27, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry to interfere, but the reviews by Ermell mixed up the two pictures with title 'La Rocca peak'. So here are, as he writes in the other review: Stitching error in the middle, two ghost birds on the left side and the right side is leaning. (and btw, some remarkable dust spots). As this conflicts with the inadvertently promotion, I'll have to send this to CR to give the delay to correct these artefacts. --PtrQs 23:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
     Question @PtrQs: , Sorry but I can't see all this , could you please put a note. Thanks--Moroder 09:17, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
     Comment I marked all the other ones (ghost birds, dust spots) --PtrQs 00:47, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Moroder: See annotation for the error. --Ermell 20:03, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for the hint. I fixed the cloning errors and the stitching error --Moroder 12:57, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Congratulations: it's nearly done - one last fat DS in the upper right corner, I marked it for you. Once it was easier, when the sensors were of the same size as our screens .. --PtrQs 01:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support close to perfect!--Augustgeyler 22:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks --Moroder 07:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support All OK now --PtrQs 17:40, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted XRay 18:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)