Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 11 2023

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Dülmen,_Kirchspiel,_ehem._Sondermunitionslager_Visbeck,_Laufgang_--_2022_--_4461_(bw).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Walkways in the former arsenal in the Dernekamp hamlet, Kirchspiel, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 05:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Coloured one is already promoted. Why promote both? --Kallerna 06:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Because color and black-and-white are different approaches of development. --XRay 15:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too simple an edit. Promoting the exact same image in b/w serves no purpose.--Peulle 12:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Please define "simple". The basic development of color and black-and-white versions are similar, but very often a black-and-white photograph needs more development steps than the color version - for example adjusting the colors to improve the shades of grey. Which development step do you think is simple? --XRay 16:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I usually just click a single button. I'm not convinced this has required anything more.--Peulle 12:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Maybe it would be interesting for you to explore the different possibilities of black-and-white photography. The dusty documentary image no longer exists. The own form of expression reduced to grayscale highlights straight structures. --XRay 19:11, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
  • If you like, please have a look to en:Monochrome photography --XRay 19:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Or have a look to en:Photographic filter, especially color filter for use with black-and-white photography. --XRay 19:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 06:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Personally don't see the benefit of having both versions promoted, and in any case I find the very white sky distracting to my eye. BigDom 10:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
That's a good argument. Thanks. I looked at the picture again and decided to forego part of the sky. --XRay 10:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, that is definitely less distracting. I'll strike my opposition. BigDom (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. To my eyes, this is a substantially different development from the colour version. --Lion-hearted85 (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:54, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Kirchspiel,_ehem._Sondermunitionslager_Visbeck,_Beobachtungsturm_der_US_Army_--_2022_--_4457.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Control desk in the watchtower of the former arsenal in the Dernekamp hamlet, Kirchspiel, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Quite random composition. Already promoted File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, ehem. Sondermunitionslager Visbeck, Beobachtungsturm der US Army -- 2022 -- 4448.jpg is better. --Kallerna 06:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
    First of all: Here is QI, not VI. Why do you think the composition looks random? It isn't. It's a centered position in front of the keyboard. --XRay 15:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 06:51, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Kallerna. --GRDN711 19:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Well done. The mentioned File:Dülmen, Kirchspiel, ehem. Sondermunitionslager Visbeck, Beobachtungsturm der US Army -- 2022 -- 4448.jpg has a totally different use case, you cannot use the one image in situations in which you would use the other one. --Aristeas 09:43, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Kallerna and GRDN711: The criticism of the photos should also help the authors. However, I have problems with your reviews. (1) The photo is clearly structured, the lines are correct, the keyboard is shown centrally as a relic. Why should this shot look random - as you claim? Could you please explain this to me? (2) You pull out a photo for comparison. This is not really an issue with QI, that the best of an issue is dealt with in VI. Why do you compare with a photo in a completely different presentation? The subject is identical, but everything else is clearly different: perspective, viewpoint, cropping, … Please explain to me and the others why in this case here at QI a comparison with another photo should be used for evaluation. Thanks. --XRay 12:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
  • It is a dusty desk with messy background. The keyboard is really small part of the photo. IMO the composition is really random. --Kallerna 08:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the info. I still can't really understand it. It is an abandoned tower. Dust and dirt collect on the table, stains from water are there. You could not see all this properly if you limit yourself to the keyboard. A photo of the keyboard alone would represent a keyboard, but no longer the environment it is in. To limit all this to a random composition seems too simple to me. --XRay 09:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

File:Char-siu_pork_salad_-_Oriental_cuisine.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Char-siu pork salad. By User:Sarkar Sayantan --Bodhisattwa 18:09, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose DoF is too low IMHO --Poco a poco 18:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. Shallow field of depth is standard in modern food photography. --Frank Schulenburg 20:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A shallow DoF would be fine but here I think it's gone too far in the other direction. Besides, not even the focal point is sharp here.--Peulle 07:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per Frank Schulenburg. Great composition, colours, and lighting. --Smial 14:05, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support In all likelihood f/8 to f/11 would have made this image look better. Yet, aesthetically nice shapes, curves and textures make up for extremely narrow depth of view. --Argenberg 12:40, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 20:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

File:Yellow_Asteraceae_Idukki_Kerala_Dec22_A7C_04789.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Yellow wildflower, Mexican sunflower (Tithonia diversifolia (?)), Idukki, Kerala, India --Tagooty 04:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 04:18, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose for now. Insufficient ID. Generally, the genus should be known. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Excellent photo, though. -- Ikan Kekek 08:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Info The daisy family has >1,500 genera. This specimen was growing wild on the verge of a road. I am consulting a botanist and hope to get a more specific ID soon. --Tagooty 04:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Robert Flogaus-Faust and Ikan Kekek: The botanist has identified it as Tithonia diversifolia. I've added the CAT. '(?)' in the summary as the species id is based on a single image. --Tagooty 15:24, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Thanks! Good quality. However, please note that pings do not work here. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Great! -- Ikan Kekek 06:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support --XRay 19:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support --Snehrashmi 03:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 20:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)