Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 24 2020

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Geneva_International_Motor_Show_2018,_Le_Grand-Saconnex_(1X7A1579).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Iconiq Seven VIP at Geneva International Motor Show 2018 --MB-one 06:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support A bit tight on top but QI to me. --Cayambe 07:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
    Sign of "supported" added for it was promoted by Cayambe. -- Spurzem 08:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
     Oppose The vehicle is too dark above to see what it looks like. On the other hand, the picture becomes too bright towards the bottom. I don't think the floor was really white. In addition, the many small light reflections are very disturbing. I ask to discuss whether the photo is a quality image. -- Spurzem 10:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. Unfortunate lighting, and messy background. --Smial 09:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 19:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

=

[edit]
  • Nomination 胡楊林宣傳照Eu, como posuidor dos dereitos de autor desta obra, pola presente publícoa baixo a seguinte licenza:. By User:金三棒 --Beninho 20:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 21:19, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree The photo was obviously taken under studio conditions. The background shows tonal breaks and a possible dust spot. The reproduction of details is rather below average, which is surely also due to the very low image resolution, which is not acceptable under the above mentioned shooting conditions nowadays. --Smial 22:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Not an excellent photo, but good enough for QI --Michielverbeek 07:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
    •  Comment Things I will never understand in the QI process: Countless thoroughly suitable photos are rejected because they were made with inevitably high ISO settings due to the shooting conditions. Reasons for this are either "noise", if the image is presented in original resolution, or "not sharp enough" or "unduly downscaled", if more or less downscaling was done for noise reduction. Here we have a nicely made studio photo that was obviously downscaled (which camera had a native resolution of less than 4 MPix in 2017?), no file description that I could read without google translation, and that's ok? But there is a young, pretty lady pictured, is that a pro-criterion now? --Smial 10:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
  •  Oppose IMO there are several issues to be fixed: Resolution is too low, JPEG artifacts, background posterized. Additionaly the description could be improved. --XRay 10:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak  Oppose per XRay, and I have to agree with Smial: For photos obviously taken in the studio, we should be more critical regarding technical problems, just as (for example) we should be more forgiving about minor technical issues in street photography. --Aristeas 11:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Enough quality. Beninho 12:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Cvmontuy 12:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others --Milseburg 13:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others--Ermell 08:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Image has merit but there are troubling factors per XRay. --GRDN711 18:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Tournasol7 15:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 7 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 19:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Museum_of_Volcanoes_in_Aurillac_02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Museum of Volcanoes in Aurillac, Cantal, France. --Tournasol7 07:35, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 09:09, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
    I think the composition is non good. --Beninho 09:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
    But this isn't FP candidate. --Tournasol7 17:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
    So, is this a competition to see who gets more QI? Quality is not important? --Beninho 19:11, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
    Quality is not good enough for QI? --Tournasol7 19:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
    "The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image". The arrangement here don't contribute to the image. Quality is a sum of elements in my opinion. --Beninho 20:17, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
    So discuss please. --Tournasol7 22:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good quality and composition is certainly good enough for QI, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 06:35, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Are you sure that the composition is correct? Doesn't it cause you any kind of anxiety? If it's ok for you go ahead, but it doesn't say anything good about QI. I'm new here, so perhaps I'm wrong, but my perception is that this is a place where "almost anything" is accepted only because of the fact that an image has no noise. --Beninho 07:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - As commented above --Beninho 19:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support QI. --Carschten 22:20, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Why not? The image is sharp, good colors and I see the museum as well as in front the cars and a bus of the visitors. Of course I also could imagine a better composition. -- Spurzem 22:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support --Aristeas 10:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support certainly QI --MB-one 08:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 19:18, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Wat_Pho,_Bangkok,_Tailandia,_2013-08-22,_DD_33.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wat Pho temple, Bangkok, Thailand --Poco a poco 09:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Looks unnatural due to agressive perspective correction --MB-one 10:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
    Don't you mind if we ask for addtional feedback? it doesn't really look deformed to me. --Poco a poco 06:38, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Top is a bit unsharp but the picture is still o.k. for me.--Ermell 07:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ermell. @Ermell: please sign above.--Milseburg 09:33, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ermell. --Aristeas 10:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ermell. --Tournasol7 15:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 00:04, 24 February 2020 (UTC)