Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 21 2023

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Forchheim_St._Johannes_Luftbild-20230410-RM-160345.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Evangelical Lutheran City Parish Church of St. John in Forchheim, aerial view --Ermell 09:44, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 12:06, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's slightly turned ccw. --Imehling 12:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful and good quality, without prejudice to Imehling's point. -- Ikan Kekek 23:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan Kekek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SHB2000 (talk • contribs) 10:46, April 17, 2023 (UTC)
Vote stricken as unsigned.--Peulle 11:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Have unstruck my vote and added a timestamp --SHB2000 12:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support The church is fine -- Basile Morin 12:17, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. --Rjcastillo 05:17, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 12:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Cape_Breton_Island_map.png

[edit]

  • Nomination A map of Cape Breton Island in Nova Scotia, Canada. --SHB2000 00:43, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose <2 MP --Tagooty 03:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Fixed. --SHB2000 05:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
    •  Comment There is also an SVG version of this file. Wouldn't that be a better QI candidate? --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:11, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
      •  Info Normally Inkscape SVG files tend to have some sort of alignment issues, which is why I nominated the PNG file. --SHB2000 21:59, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
        •  Comment If you replace the image with a high res png, I'll reconsider my vote. --Tagooty 01:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
          • @Tagooty: I've uploaded a PNG that's 3,073 × 3,255 pixels. By "high res png", what's the minimum size that's ideal? It shouldn't be too hard to upload, though. --SHB2000 03:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
          •  Support Most digital cameras produce images of 24 MP. In this case, I would choose whatever resolution gives a file size of ~10 MB (which is common for many Commons images). This will be good for someone who wants to print a big poster. For ease of downloading, the Commons image page lists a number of lower resolutions (smaller file size) for the user to choose. --Tagooty 02:49, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me. -- Ikan Kekek 05:50, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. --Rjcastillo 05:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 12:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Weidingen_Wegekreuz_Königsbergstraße_14.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wayside cross in Weidingen, Germany. --Palauenc05 08:56, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 09:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Level of detail is too low here. There are compression artifacts visible at the top of the cross and at the leaves. --Augustgeyler 07:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment More opinions, please. --Palauenc05 07:49, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good image with good lighting and good quality -- Spurzem 08:46, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support The light is questionable and parts of the image are unfocussed due to the chosen perspective, but for the main subject it still remains a sufficient quality. I wouldn't say low detailed.--Der Angemeldete 10:27, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek 06:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. --Rjcastillo 05:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 12:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Macoma_petalum_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Left valve of a Tellinid, Macoma petalum --Llez 06:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality: the top right shell is unsharp. --Peulle 06:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
    •  Info I replaced the top right by a sharper version --Llez 07:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 09:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support--Ermell 10:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me.--Rjcastillo 05:15, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 12:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

File:2021_Rybnik,_Bazylika_św._Antoniego_11.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination St. Anthony Basilica. Rybnik, Silesian Voivodeship, Poland. --Halavar 09:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose I don't think that composition is QI level. It's off-centered, going so far so to cut off part of the entrance. --Peulle 08:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. Composition could be better but on the other hand sharpness and level of detail are very good regarding the resolution. Above the QI-bar in my eyes. --Milseburg 10:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose With Peulle. --Augustgeyler 07:31, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support There had been promoted off centered churches with wrong verticals and an outleaning perspective before without doing any improvement on it. In my opinion technically good quality.--Der Angemeldete 09:47, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Definitely QI. --Palauenc05 11:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The right side is awkwardly cut off, and the horizontal lines are not leveled ( perspective distortion) -- Basile Morin 09:18, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 12:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose by User:Basile Morin --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Composition could be better in my view, but there are worse QIs regarding to that. --Imehling 19:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per Imehling. Good enough for me. --Rjcastillo 05:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 13:00, 20 April 2023 (UTC)