Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 25 2024

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Silence,_Barcelona_(P1170637).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Acciona scooter by Silence Mobility in Barcelona --MB-one 09:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:37, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose. Neutral The scooter is too dark. Please discuss -- Spurzem 10:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
  • @Spurzem: ✓ Done raised shadows. Thanks for the review. --MB-one (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 Comment I don't see any significant improvement yet. However, it is difficult with a largely black vehicle. The rear swing arm should be more clearly visible. Best regards -- Spurzem 20:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:57, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Towers_from_43rd_floor_of_Mori_Tower.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A view from the cafeteria on the 43rd floor of Mori Tower, looking toward Roppongi Hills Residence B and C. --Grendelkhan 05:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • perspective distortion, correction is needed --F. Riedelio 07:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
  • At this angle , i don't think perspective correction makes sense . --Grendelkhan 08:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please do not send anything to CR without a vote. Reset to "Nomination". --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question What does "CR" mean? --F. Riedelio 07:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Does "CR" refer to the discussion? --F. Riedelio 09:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info I referred to the fact that there hadn't been a valid reason to send this image to CR by turning "/Nomination" to "/Discuss" because there was no vote. Commons:Quality images candidates clearly states this:
    "Please only send things to consensual review that have been reviewed as promoted/declined. If, as a reviewer, you cannot make a decision, add your comments but leave the candidate on this page" --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose However, I do not want to start an edit war over this. So I oppose this image, even though it looks interesting; the distorted perspective by the wide-angle close-up view of the highrises is a bit too much IMO. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I share Grendelkhan's view that this picture would work without PC ("fixing the verticals" would probably make it look unnatural). It could also fit into QI "perspective" category.
  •  Info Unsigned vote stricken. Please sign your votes. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 08:10, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Oops! --Plozessor 04:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Perspective correction does not make sense in this extreme case, we are clearly looking down in a steep angle. We can also see this as an intentional depiction of the vertiginous perspective from a skyscraper. Overall quality is good. – Aristeas 13:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 Comment For many photos with a similarly strong perspective projection, some people here on QIC demand that vertical walls are also necessarily depicted vertically. Otherwise they will be rejected. Of course, this applies to views looking angularly upwards. As a result, photographers have been uploading completely absurdly corrected images for some time now, as otherwise there is a high risk that the coveted badge will be denied. These extremely forced corrected photos look like shit and completely unnatural, but they have the badge. Why does this double standard exist depending on whether someone is looking up or down? --Smial 12:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 Comment @Smial Thank you for your comment. My comment above was somewhat ambiguous: I did not support the image just because we are looking down, but the emphasis was on clearly, i.e. in a steep angle. I have made this more explicit now by adding “in a steep angle”. I hope this at least makes clear that I am not using double standards for looking up vs. down – this would indeed be absurd –, but that I personally think a perspective correction is necessary for all slightly and accidentally slanted architecture photos, but not for photos which make the extreme perspective itself an intentional part of the composition. Of course everybody the latter is a matter of taste. – Aristeas 16:52, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   –-Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)