Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 06 2023

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Lamborghini_Urus_S_1X7A7435.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lamborghini Urus S in Böblingen.--Alexander-93 09:16, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose. Unfavorable lighting, windshield and bonnet far too bright. Color of the adjacent vehicle is very disturbing. For me the photo is not a quality image. But let's hear what others have to say about it. -- Spurzem 10:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --BigDom 15:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Cherry_Heering_-_Peter_Heering_Liqueur_70cl_35cl_50cl_bottles.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cherry Heering - Peter Heering Liqueur flessen 70cl 35cl 50cl --Alex P. Kok 15:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Too much noise, sorry, not a QI to me --Poco a poco 07:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  QuestionCould you please state where you see distracting noise? Alex P. Kok 09:50, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment To be honest, everywhere, but specially in darker areas, there are also artifacts. This is an easy shot and I expect much better quality. I could give you further feedback if I could see the EXIF data, but it's hidden. Poco a poco 10:51, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good image though I would like it a little bit darker. I can not say that there would be distracting noise. -- Spurzem 13:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strong noise on the sides of the bottles. --Jakubhal 16:41, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --BigDom 15:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Raadhuis_Zundert_1.png[edit]

  • Nomination Town Hall of Zundert --ReneeWrites 19:56, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Palauenc05 07:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nice shot, but too low detail level --Poco a poco 07:15, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good image and good quality -- Spurzem 11:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Poco. This isn't a QI in 2023.--Peulle 19:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Images with this resolution should have almost perfect quality at pixel-size. Sorry --PantheraLeo1359531 14:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too low detail level --Jakubhal 15:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --BigDom 15:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Harley_Davidson_-_Fat_Boy_114_(3).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Different view of a Harley Davidson Fat Boy 114 (2021 - 2023) parked in Cesena, Piazzetta dei Cesenati (1377). --Gio Terra 16:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Palauenc05 07:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lacks sharpness, sorry --Poco a poco 07:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. In my opinion, the picture is sharp enough, even if I look at the details almost in their original size. -- Spurzem 11:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Poco a poco, level of detail is too low  Level of detail too low. --F. Riedelio 12:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others.--Peulle 19:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --BigDom 15:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Cattle,_Volo_(P1090958).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A herd of cattle in rural North Tongu, Ghana --MB-one 07:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Terragio67 16:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Off focus. --Светлана И. Ленина 13:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Not eligible to vote due to fewer edits. --Milseburg 12:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support No good composition, but sharp, correct colors und good lighting. -- Spurzem 11:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom 15:11, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Panorama_depuis_le_château_de_Saxon.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination La vue depuis le sommet de la tour du château de Saxon en juin 2023. --Espandero 20:20, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality.Unfavorable crop. Neither the mountains nor the town are sufficiently in the image. --Milseburg 13:39, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  InfoMilseburg: The town or the mountains are not the subject of this picture. The point of this image is to show the view from the top of the tower from one hillside to another, so the subject is the Rhône valley. "Insufficient quality" is harsh considering it's a 20 pictures panorama where you can zoom in and see the neighboring villages quite well. Adding a lower portion would not have made much sense since part of the castle blocks the view on the village in the center of the panorama. The wall at the top of the tower is also a factor because there's no way of having this angle while shooting down without having to move physically, which would impact the panorama's shape (I already had to crop the right part a bit because I shot the wall by accident). I can understand the higher portion a bit more but that would have added more sky than mountain. So it would have been harder to make technically for not a lot of benefit. Those mountains are also, IMO, not that remarkable. Best regards, Espandero 17:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but the composition seems indecisive about the subject of the image. As a documentation of the view from the tower, it seems incomplete and the chosen excerpt is to narrow. If stitched there should be no problem for enlarging the shown view. --Milseburg 18:36, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor crop. --SHB2000 00:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

* Oppose Unlucky crop. --Светлана И. Ленина 17:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Not eligible to vote due to fewer edits. --Milseburg 12:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --BigDom 15:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Baardsund_in_Krossfjorden_06.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bårdsund in Krossfjorden, Austevoll. --Vasmar1 14:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Milseburg 13:52, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Tilted CCW. Otherwise good. --MB-one 09:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Tilted, thanks! --Vasmar1 13:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Thank you! --MB-one 15:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom 15:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

File:MDR700_West_Masinagudi_Nilgiris_Jun23_A7C_05207.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Main road MDR 700 from Ooty towards Theppakadu, Masinagudi --Tagooty 03:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:25, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, it need the perspective correction - it's leaning in. --Tournasol7 15:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose And grey line at the bottom. --Sebring12Hrs 05:19, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done @Tournasol7 and Sebring12Hrs: Improved perspective. I do not see a grey line, could you please indicate where? --Tagooty 10:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
* Requesting reviews of the new version, please --Tagooty 10:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

File:South_Australia_regions_map.png[edit]

  • Nomination: Regions map of South Australia. --SHB2000 13:36, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Review
     Support Looks good to me. -- 02:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Inaccurate - cannot read all regions' proper names and Clare Valley missing --Charlesjsharp 14:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
    This map was specifically designed for voy:en:South Australia where there is no article for the Clare Valley. --SHB2000 04:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
    That's no reason to produce a map with so many errors e.g. Yorke is too big. Why would you produce maps like this when better ones exist? e.g. on the government website. Charlesjsharp 09:05, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
"Why would you produce maps like this when better ones exist?" – I literally explained it to you in my previous comment (if you somehow missed "This map was specifically designed for voy:en:South Australia"). --SHB2000 11:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Or if that wasn't clear enough, Charles, let me put it this way: it is accurate; just not the way you want it to be. The purpose of this map is not to provide a visual illustration of South Australia's regions on *Wikivoyage*, which it does (unless you can point out one mismatch between voy:en:South Australia and this map). Your statement "Why would you produce maps like this when better ones exist?" demonstrates your lack of understanding for why many maps on Wikimedia Commons exist in the first place. Your oppose vote is out-of-line at best. --SHB2000 12:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Charles, maps leaving things out does not make them inaccurate. This map is inaccurate only if the information shown on it is in any way wrong. However, I don't think it's a QI yet, because there are letters of names that overlap with coastlines and boundaries or just barely miss doing so. For example, I'd suggest using a smaller pitch for Murray & Mallee Riverland to avoid such overlaps. -- Ikan Kekek 04:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback, Ikan! Before I make the changes, regarding your points:
  • Should I trunkate "Murray and Mallee Riverland" to "Riverland" (and add Riverland to the key) which should then get rid of the overlap?
  • Now that I look at it, I can see the flaws with Ceduna and Pt Lincoln, I'll move them after your reply to my first bullet point (easier to make all changes at once)
  • If the Yorke Peninsula overlapping with the two highways (A1 and A32) prevents this from becoming a QI, how should I convey the text in question?
Thanks again for the informative feedback :-). --SHB2000 08:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Karlu_Karlu_Rocks_in_Devils_Marbles_Conservation_Reserve,_NT.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Karlu Karlu Rocks in Devils Marbles Conservation Reserve, Northern Territory, Australia (by Warren Poole) --SHB2000 00:43, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 00:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness on the subject is questionable, in my opinion. Let's have a discussion. -- Ikan Kekek 06:16, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry: Insufficient DoF and level of detail is too low for QI. --F. Riedelio 09:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)}
  •  Support Somewhat soft viewed in full resolution, but by far good enough for a decent A4-size print. Nice colours, lighting, and composition. --Smial 15:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ikan and F. Riedelio --Jakubhal 15:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. Beautiful and interesting image -- Spurzem 19:42, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose In full resolution not sharp enough for QI --Milseburg 12:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment So you want to encourage uploaders to more or less downscale their photos to fake greater sharpness at "full resolution"? It is well known that images with around 6 MPixels at normal viewing distance are suitable for any magnification. This meets my criterion that a handheld print at about A4 size should appear sharp when viewed without a magnifying glass. Anything above that is bonus, slight weaknesses at higher image resolutions should not be the sole rejection criterion for QIC. Besides, it is completely illusory to demand pixel-sharp images for every photo from cameras with more than 16 MPixels (APS) or 36 MPixels (FF). Purely physical reasons speak against this, see "diffraction". --Smial 17:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC) (Of course, the 6-pixel rule of thumb does not apply to special cases such as extreme wide-angle or panoramic photos or stitched images that were obviously created with the intention of providing extremely high detail and resolution and to be viewed from very low distance.) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
      •  Comment Sharpness is an important criterion. I am opposed to disregarding full resolution and judge only about a reduction as "review size", especially when the attractiveness of the subject is dazzling. This only means that photographers no longer pay attention to getting the best sharpness out of their camera. There could be more here. If it leads to downscaling that is well below the possible resolution of the camera, I would decline too. --Milseburg 20:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
@Milseburg: It's been a long time since I've posted any pictures for QI evaluation. But I get annoyed regularly when I see the criteria used to evaluate here. If an image is sharp and if the lines of buildings are vertical, then the photo is excellent, everything else doesn't matter. Then the picture can be over- or underexposed, with extreme shadows or completely distorted and with a distracting background. Then it is okay. Best regards -- Spurzem 09:47, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Smial, nice image. --Kallerna 12:00, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Not the sharpest, but still ok for QI . --Palauenc05 14:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ikan --Ermell 20:26, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ikan --Sandro Halank 12:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficient sharpness and level of detail --LexKurochkin 18:38, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 7 oppose → Declined   --BigDom 15:24, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

File:At_the_Intrepid_Museum_2023_221.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The stern of the Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum --Mike Peel 20:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 06:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think that Charles got a point, I revert my vote Poco a poco 20:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose right crop --Charlesjsharp 14:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per Poco. --SHB2000 06:07, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry: truncated object, perspective distortion perspective distortion and white color fringes . --F. Riedelio 09:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good quality -- Spurzem 19:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Charles. -- Ikan Kekek 04:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support ok --Sandro Halank 12:49, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately cropped :( --PantheraLeo1359531 13:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
     Comment Please do not close the discussion less than 48 hours after the last entry! I reopened it because it was not rightfully closed. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --BigDom 15:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC))

File:At_the_Intrepid_Museum_2023_223.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Vought F-8 Crusader at Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum --Mike Peel 20:27, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 06:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose something stuck on the nose. Foreground shadows --Charlesjsharp 14:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good quality -- Spurzem 19:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Question I'm willing to accept the shadows and the lack of separation between the nose and whatever that is, but could you decrease the noise palpably? -- Ikan Kekek 04:57, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
    @Ikan Kekek: I've uploaded a new version with noise reduced, does that look better? The "whatever it is" is the enclosure for Category:Space Shuttle Enterprise at the Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum. Thanks. Mike Peel 22:15, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
    @Mike Peel: the new version is too small, could you re-upload? BigDom 05:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
    @BigDom: Oops, wrong export setting, full resolution version now uploaded. Thanks. Mike Peel 08:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree though that the image would benefit from a tighter crop at the bottom. It's uninteresting and the shadows don't help, either. Poco a poco 10:47, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support The image might be better with different crop, but even as it is good enough for QI. --LexKurochkin 18:35, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom 15:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

File:EBACE_2023,_Le_Grand-Saconnex_(EB237514).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Gulfstream G800 prototype with extended pitot probe on static display at EBACE 2023 --MB-one 15:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 20:30, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry - making clean images of static planes at an air show is difficult. Unfortunately, this one has too many obstructions in front and on the left, to clearly show the plane. --GRDN711 23:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per GRDN711. --Kallerna 12:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Regretfully oppose due to obstructions on the left. A pity because I'd have supported this image if it weren't for that. --SHB2000 07:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --BigDom 15:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Crane in flight, Altenpleen (P1090063).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Common crane (grus grus) in flight --MB-one 15:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:29, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose flying away from photographer --Charlesjsharp 14:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment License migration redundant --F. Riedelio 08:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per Poco. --SHB2000 12:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Small & unsharp. --Kallerna 12:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
    • @Kallerna: it's well above the 2MP requirement. Also, where do you see sharpness issues? --MB-one 14:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment The image looks sharp, but the level of detail is rather low. On the other hand, this is a bird in flight. The description is bad because this is a bird photo from Kranorama, not a photo of the bird surveillance station. There is no species name in the file name either. Sorry. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:28, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Ulrich_Silberbach_2019_Landtagswiese_Düsseldorf.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Chief of the union DBB, Ulrich Silberbach --Grunpfnul 15:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Hand and elbow cropped at the lower edge while the upper part of the image has a lot of space. --Sandro Halank 18:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your feedback. This seems to be a matter of personal preference, which I personally don't share. The face is in the golden ratio, and I would cut off an elbow for it anytime (one of your pictures on your profile also has this characteristic, which is why I can't fully understand the argument). --Grunpfnul 19:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
      • This is Quality Images Of Out Of Focus Ellbows! scnr --Smial 15:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I, too, find the crop of the elbow overly distracting. -- Ikan Kekek 06:09, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Some unimportant areas in the background a little bit too bright, otherwise near perfect event portrait. --Smial 11:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine for me. BigDom 09:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Subject is in focus, there's a good separation of fore- and background, face is sharp even when zoomed-in, composition is great. I don't find the elbow crop distracting, and it's not the point of the picture anyway. ReneeWrites 12:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose per Sandro Halank and Ikan Kekek --LexKurochkin 18:31, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Emblem_of_the_Association_of_the_Athenians.svg[edit]

  • Nomination: SVG emblem of the Association of the Athenians -- 21:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose original author is unknown. is it wikimedia user? --Modern primat 11:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
    •  Info Original designer is someone who lived in the year of 1821. I drew the vector graphic. -- 13:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support the image is of good quality and was made by a wikimedian user. --LexKurochkin 09:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)