Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 28 2024

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Панорама_Волчий_Водопад.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Panoramic view of mountains near Wolf waterfall, Ebita, Kazakhstan. By User:Islamova.art --Екатерина Борисова 06:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment The sky is very dark. --ArildV 07:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not done. --ArildV 14:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Great atmosphere. Foreground quite sharp. Some gradations in clouds, but still good to watch. Ziko 16:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment seems unnatural, the sun is on the right in the picture but on the left there are clouds and mountains also in the light --Georgfotoart 11:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose colour banding at the sky, especially at the clouds. --Augustgeyler 11:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Great picture,  Oppose only because of the extreme colour banding in the cloud in the upper right corner. --Plozessor 12:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 04:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Muzeum_Śląskie_-_new_buildings_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination New building of the Silesian Museum in Katowice, Poland --Kritzolina 18:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Nice composition, but sharpness and level of detail are too low here. --Augustgeyler 19:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --ArildV 19:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  • weak  Support. Stopping down to e.g. f/5.6 would probably have increased general sharpness, but good enough for an A4 size print. --Smial 12:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough. IMO those glass windows are blurry themselves. --Plozessor 04:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 12:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Trier_BW_2022-06-22_07-30-13.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Germany, Trier, Main market with the church of St.Trier Gangolf --Berthold Werner 09:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality -- Spurzem 10:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment CA on the edges of roofs and on the poles. --Mike1979 Russia 14:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment As I said above: Good quality. We should not overdo with our requirements. -- Spurzem 07:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Georgfotoart 10:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per spurzem. Possibly a little too much noise removal, but overall good enough for an A4-size print. Very nice lighting and composition, hardly any disturbing objects in the picture. --Smial 12:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree with you. It's good foto. The places that disturbing me I marked by comment on foto. I thought that it's easy to fix them. But if you shure that they are minor and unimportant OK. --Mike1979 Russia 12:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
 Comment It's always a question of weighing up the various technical requirements for QIC and creative aspects and also the respective shooting conditions. I also pixelpeep when something in a photo seems suspicious to me. But I tend to look at whether fundamental mistakes were made when the photo was taken rather than whether someone has actually repaired every microscopic error. Of course, I also grumble about CA, which is already disturbing at A4 size. If you give an oppose because of the CA, that's completely ok for me, because your judgment is factually justified, only your weighting is different from mine. --Smial 16:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good image and very usable in article. Maybe the remnants of that building on the right could be cropped away. Ziko 16:26, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good image. Could be sharpened slightly (and converted with a bit less NR) but still ok as it is. Some one-pixel-wide CA/halos but IMO these are not disturbing. Related, @Mike1979 Russia, you should not use image annotations to mark defects, see Commons:Image_annotations#Examples_of_inappropriate_and_not-informative_notes. --Plozessor 04:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is temporary to show disturbing places. I'll delete them after the discussion. --Mike1979 Russia 13:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, exactly this, temporary annotations to point out issues in QI or FPC discussions, is considered inappropriate use of image notes per documentation. --Plozessor 03:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
 Question What other options are available to mark errors that may not be easy to recognize? Dust spots are sometimes difficult to find if the background is not a monotonous blue sky and stitching errors are localized and you have to laboriously search a large pano to verify them. --Smial 10:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
 Question Thank you, I didn't know about special Template:ImageWithNotes for it. But when I tried to use it here it doesn't work. What I did wrong?--Mike1979 Russia 12:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support In general, I totally agree that pictures with technical defects, such as CA, should not be promoted. Here, however, any defect is really hardly noticeable. Without those notes, I would never spot any problem, and after seeing it, I still believe the picture is far above the bar here. --Jakubhal 00:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 04:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Carved_Beams_Poomukhamalika_Padmanabhapuram_Palace_Mar24_A7C_10108.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Carved roof beams and ceiling, Poomukhamalika, Padmanabhapuram Palace --Tagooty 01:21, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 01:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image is lacking sharpness in the lower part, looks slightly over-sharpened and has a composition error by being weirdly rotated. --Augustgeyler 21:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per August, lack of DoF, and perspective (should probably be skewed so that it looks rectangular). --Plozessor 04:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 12:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Jindřichov_-_autumn.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Autumn in Jindřichov, Czech Republic --Pudelek 16:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Very nice image. But please give a more precise description where exactly this is. --Augustgeyler 18:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Not done --Augustgeyler 21:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support No need to knwo what exactly it is. I add a short description. Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 20:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Georgfotoart 10:41, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment There are guidelines requesting a proper description. This description here is giving not where this is or what path we see or which kind of tree or park is in the frame. --Augustgeyler 16:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support We know that is in Jindřichov which is a village with 1500 inhabitants, so I think it is just precise enough. The picture could be use to illustrate an article about the village. But it would still be very useful to have more precise location ('near house XXX', 'west of the church', something like that). --Plozessor 04:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 04:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)--Plozessor 04:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)