Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 14 2021

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Un_amphi_de_l'école_normale_supérieure_de_Maroua.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Un amphi de l'école normale supérieur de Maroua, Cameroun (by Harouna674) --Bile rene 13:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Kritzolina 15:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not well processed, and tilted IMO. --A.Savin 18:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose +1. --Peulle 10:46, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose with A.Savin. --Augustgeyler 15:09, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 17:54, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Dimorphotecaeclonis1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Violet Dimorphoteca eclonis (Cape Margarite) in Tandil, Argentina --Ezarate 20:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment I believe the flower should be centered. --Steindy 21:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC) Can we wait another reviewer?, I applied rule of thirds here --Ezarate 21:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Composition ok, --Smial 13:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagreee, let us discuss. --Steindy 20:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't love the composition, but the flower is so sharp! -- Ikan Kekek 08:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment The composition is really strange. --Augustgeyler 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Nothing wrong with the composition and technical quality is very good. Alvesgaspar 21:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. -- Johann Jaritz 05:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 17:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Sankt_Kanzian_im_Jauntal_Stein_Jauntaler_Straße_Bildstock_13102021_9041.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wayside shrine on Jauntaler Straße in Stein, Sankt Kanzian im Jauntal, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 03:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 04:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The shrine isn't in focus at 100%, obscured by a shadow, and if it's the subject of the photo, needs a different composition. --Prburley 15:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Taking into account the resolution the image is sharp enough. And IMO the composition showing the environment of the wayside shrine is a good choice. --XRay 09:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Per XRay. Thank you, XRay. -- Johann Jaritz 06:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Image is slightly tilted (fixable) and subject is blurred (not fixable). -- Alvesgaspar 13:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Overall a bit soft, but good enough. Excellent composition, nice lighting. --Smial 01:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per XRay and Smial. --Aristeas 10:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose A good composition but the image is not sharp enough.--Augustgeyler 08:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support--Commonists 00:38, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I like the composition, but it is unsharp.--Jebulon 16:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak support --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 17:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

File:2021-10-26_Fussball,_Frauen,_Länderspiel,_Deutschland_-_Israel_1DX_1009_by_Stepro.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Women Soccer, Nia Künzer. By --Stepro 21:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --King of Hearts 00:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Top cropped --Tagooty 15:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Cropping the top of a head is a totally valid thing to do in portraiture. --King of Hearts 16:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, in portraits, making this kind of crop is an established procedure. I don't like it, but it's generally regarded as OK. --Peulle 07:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. Nevertheless, I sometimes think that my antique Rokkor MC 1.4/58 or the MC 2.5/100 with their soft, shiny blur had certain advantages over modern, up-to-date technology when photographing portraits. --Smial 11:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 Comment Usually I don't do portraits with 400mm lenses. But nothing is back to normal at the moment. ;-) Stepro 21:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good portrait for QI. If this were FPC, opposing for the aesthetic reason of preferring to see the top of her head would be valid; here, I think we should allow for differences in taste. -- Ikan Kekek 00:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Differences of taste are ok and welcome but to me this crop is just disturbing, the photographer should decide whether to get the whole head or not, but 95% ist not a good compromise to me Poco a poco 09:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree, looks just like a casual snapshot. Alvesgaspar 10:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose With Poco a poco. There should be a more clear decision for or against cropping. --Augustgeyler 12:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Per king,surely --Commonists 20:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support just the face is enough in this case.--Ermell 22:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose per Tagooty and Poco a poco. Find the top crop disturbing and it could have been easily avoided. --GRDN711 16:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 Comment I guess it's a matter of personal preference. For me, this picture without the shoulders and the neck cut off would be a lot more disturbing. Stepro 17:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for me --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per above. Matter of taste, but a "portrait" size should have been better for me.--Jebulon 16:52, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  • A photo was only recently rejected because the fingertips(!) of one soccer player were not in the picture and the tips of the hair were missing in another photo. Although I think the photo is good, I can only vote  Oppose, according to the general voting behavior. --Steindy 20:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me. -- Johann Jaritz 07:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Let me ask two candid questions: i) Is the present framing a deliberate choice? ii) If not, why not try to get a better one with the whole head? The more I read the above comments the more I'm convinced that this discussion has little to do with the merits of this photo or even with the abstract question of "to cut or not to cut one's head". Please read what Rhododendrites wrote about the purpose of QIC, as a 'community exercise', in the on-going discussion about the QIC reviewing process . Alvesgaspar 15:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 Comment It's a deliberate choice to cut the head above instead the shoulders below. When you are supposed to stay at your place, and use a 400 mm prime lense, that is the only choice you have.
But I disagree that this is not the abstract question of "to cut or not to cut one's head". For me it is exactly this question. It is a question of a) personal taste and b) personal style of picture language. In my opinion this should not play any role on QI. --Stepro 21:36, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thus you agree that your choice was forced by the unfavorable conditions. Which brings us to my second question: why is it so important to promote this particular image, despite its shortcomings, when better chances will certainly arise? By the way, why downsizing the image to about 61% of its original size? -- Alvesgaspar 21:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Just because I personally think that this particular image meets the standards of quality, and I see no point where this standard is not achieved. It's sharp, has no CA, dust spots, or other technical faults, and I like this composition. I'm often cropping heads without no need as a part of my picture language, as I wrote above. You see "shortcomings", I'm not. --Stepro 22:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
What about the downsampling? You're not supposed to do that, right? -- Ikan Kekek 15:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 8 support (excluding the nominator), 7 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 23:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)