Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 26 2024

Consensual review

edit

File:Montréal–Trudeau_airport_terminal_viewed_airside_from_abroad_an_Austrian_Airlines_B767-300ER.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Original 1960s-era terminal building of Montreal International Airport viewed from the tarmac viewed from aboard parked jet --Ptrump16 03:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Far too overprocessed, sorry. --XtraJovial 00:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • No adjustments was done aside from straightening. Your issue is with Mother Nature. --Ptrump16 19:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough. --Sebring12Hrs 06:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unclear subject; building is leaning right, engine is cut off...--Peulle 08:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's unclear what the subject is, and the vignetting is very distracting. Imo not fixable. --Smial 10:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

File:20230107_Johannisfriedhof_Nürnberg_03.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination The Memorial stele of Wolfgang Münzer on the Johannis Church Cemetery in Nuremberg --FlocciNivis 16:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Good motif but unfortunately below the quality limit for QI --Ermell 20:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough for me. --XtraJovial 00:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The image sharpness is undoubtedly good enough in the center, but decreases significantly towards the edges of the image. The lens used may not be well suited for photos of architecture, landscapes or the like, where uniform image quality is important. It may help to switch the camera to APS-C format for critical subjects. There are also dust spots. --Smial 12:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now because there are really many dust spots. Otherwise could be acceptable since the subject is sharp enough and I like the composition. --Plozessor 13:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp outside the center, and several large dust spots. I'm sorry to oppose as I believe this is an good composition. --Benjism89 21:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 06:42, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Gebhards_Hotel,_Göttingen_(P1140800).jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Gebhards Hotel in Göttingen --MB-one 21:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    Needs PC (top bulging out); a bit dark --Tagooty 03:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
      Done Thanks for the review --MB-one 20:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    i've made an correction @MB-one, please take a look --Grunpfnul 17:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for the adjustments! --MB-one 10:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
      Support Good quality. --Tagooty 11:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
      Oppose Lacks good description, was lacking good categorization --Wikisquack 20:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • @Wikisquack:   Done improved description and categorization. --MB-one 07:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 11:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Bremerhaven,_Neuer_Hafen_--_2024_--_2168.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination New harbour and tour boat “Hein Mück”, Bremerhaven, Bremen, Germany --XRay 02:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Plozessor 03:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment Image could be improved with a tighter crop that excludes the distracting boat cut-in-half on the right.This allows stronger focus on both lighthouse and ship (marked with note). --GRDN711 00:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I'll have a look at it in the next few days when I have access to my photos again. --XRay 04:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
@GRDN711: If you disagree with an existing promotion, move the item to discussion, don't just comment. (I don't find the half boat on the right disturbing.) --Plozessor 04:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
@Plozessor: I don’t disagree with the existing promotion as overall this is a quality image. I do feel it could be stronger with a little tighter cropping (IMHO the boat chopped-in-half on the right is disturbing and does not add to the image topic). I added a comment to the existing promotion as the best response that represents my intent. The overall status of the image remains “Support with comment”, with XRay given the option to act on the comment or not. As there is no Oppose, IMO this image should not have been moved to consensual review. --GRDN711 16:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
@GRDN711: But with your comment you undid the promotion and reset the picture to nomination. I think the helper does that when you comment on an already promoted picture; you should manually edit the source instead. --Plozessor 04:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
@Plozessor: I did not undo the promotion. After my comment (which should not have changed to an "oppose"), the QI status of this image was "Support with comment". As far as resetting the image nomination, this is an artifact of the evaluation voting app and has been documented previously. I would encourage you to work with the developers to improve the app.
  •   Support Good for me -- Spurzem 10:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • @GRDN711, Plozessor, and Spurzem:   Done The file has now been cropped - a little bit and without the proposed cropped elements at the left. The position of the ship now takes the golden spiral into account. If I may make a comment: I am always happy to receive suggestions. It is quite difficult if the photo has already been positively evaluated. It is also difficult to reset the nomination status. A comment without changing the status would have sufficed in my opinion. Now the rating is up for discussion, in my opinion rather unnecessarily. But I hope that the changed crop will be received positively. --XRay 05:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support with cropping changes. --GRDN711 (talk) 04:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support As cropped --Scotch Mist 11:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Самарканд,_Алексеевский_собор,_киот.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Icon case with the icon at the wall of the Alexeyevsky cathedral at 1, Bobur Mirzo street, Samarqand, Uzbekistan. --Красный 09:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --MB-one 09:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose How it can be QI, did you notice all the noise and CAs ? I don't understand... --Sebring12Hrs 10:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Blur, CA, perspective. --Plozessor 05:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not really sharp and CA. --Benjism89 17:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As per others --Scotch Mist 10:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

File:سد_ميشليفن_من_سطح_مستشفى_بن_صميم.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination A dam and a Michlifen Dam, agricultural lands and oak forest, from the rural commune of Bensemim in the Moroccan Middle Atlas. --User:Mounir Neddi 10:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Moving unassessed pictures to discussions is against the rules! --Plozessor 05:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunately, this is not the first case, see another nomination below. -- Екатерина Борисова 16:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very good lights and compo, but poor sharpness. --Sebring12Hrs 17:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 06:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)