Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 08 2024

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Close_wing_posture_Nectaring_of_Eurema_hecabe_(Linnaeus,_1758)_-_Common_Grass_Yellow_WLB_DSC_4525.jpg

[edit]

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 09:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Željko_Obradović_KK_Partizan_EuroLeague_20241101_(1).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Basketball-Euroleague 2024/25, Round 7: Fenerbahçe Beko Istanbul vs. Partizan Mozzart Bet Belgrade (89-72) – KK Partizan head coach Željko Obradović --Zafer 11:07, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 14:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Sorry, but the focus is on the ear, the rest of the face is clearly too soft. --Sandro Halank 16:00, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sandro --George Chernilevsky 16:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sandro --Plozessor 06:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose +1. --Peulle 08:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment QI guidelines have an exemption policy on portrait photography for perfect sharpness, so I don't mind that it's not perfectly sharp, it still does a good job depicting its subject. ReneeWrites 09:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry @Sandro Halank, George Chernilevsky, Plozessor, and Peulle: , this is the quality image candidate, not a featured image. Regards and Thanks, Zafer (talk) 09:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I understand that this is a difficult shot, but the result is really below avergade. Currently, the requirements for QI are minimal. If we approve any blurry photo here, then the QI project must be closed as useless. -- George Chernilevsky 10:39, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is QI, and IMO your picture does not meet the QI guidelines. It is noisy and blurry due ISO 2500 and also low f-number (since the ear is sharp). We could probably accept low DoF for a difficult shot, but then the focus should be on the face, not on one ear.
  • Sorry, the image is clearly usable. But it is not a quality image. It is true that we accept limited depth of field and higher level of noise for sports and indoor photography (if the conditions do not allow a tripod), but quality images should not have obvious technical flaws unrelated to the conditions. Here the focus is clearly wrong, it would have been possible to take a picture where the face and not the ear was in focus.--ArildV 16:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Although I like to concede a certain amount of image deficiencies in available light photos, I unfortunately have to agree with the other voters here, because even in A4 size the wrong focus is recognizable. This does not mean that the picture is garbage and unusable. --Smial 14:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 09:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

File:2024_Kłodzko,_ul._Walecznych_3_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination 3 Walecznych Street in Kłodzko 2 --Jacek Halicki 23:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Drab, not very visually appealing, and not especially high quality --The People's Internet 00:17, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me. PLease discuss. --Tournasol7 00:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The building might be drab, but that's not the photographer's fault. IMO the picture meets QI guidelines and fulfills its purpose. --Plozessor 12:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support QI is about technical requirements, not whether a picture is pretty. ReneeWrites 09:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support--ArildV 16:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 09:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Arch_of_Hadrian_(Gerasa,_Jerash;_Jordan)_-_قوس_هادريان_(جرش).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Arch of Hadrian (Gerasa, Jerash; Jordan) --PetarM 17:05, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 23:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There's something strange happening with the people behind. some processing artifacts. By the way... why 70 Mpx? Do we gain something from that additional high resolution mode? --Kadellar 17:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Downsampling is against QI guidelines, so if the native resolution of this panorama is 70 MP then it should be uploaded in that resolution. --Plozessor 12:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose, mainly because there's at least one stitching error, visible especially at the information board in the center (behind the arch). This also shows that the different frames have different focus. And it's obviously a panorama, but the panorama template is missing. --Plozessor 12:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yellow boy is redrawn, but some behing are not so well since moving and i used Hi-res shot. @Kadellar, Plozessor Nominal this is 20 MPx sensor, and people in back dont spoil so much. Those people are from 20 MPx and had to be enlarged to this size, ×2 --PetarM 11:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 09:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Slaski_tydzien_5057.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination The part of monument of John of Nepomuk in Wrocław --Lvova 12:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Ok, given that the picture is from 2011. --Plozessor 04:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose The left arm and hand aren't in focus. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 04:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry. As it is nominated in 2024, today's standards apply. It is very difficult, nearly impossible, for most reviewers to apply the standards of 13 years ago. --Tagooty 01:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info Just butting in, quickly, to mention that the Guidelines specify that: "The purpose of quality image status is to recognize that at the moment of creation, a Commons user skillfully achieved a desirable level of quality, a recognition that is not erased by later advances." So technically, the standards of 2011 (not 2024) are the ones that apply. If that makes it hard for users to judge, there's always the option of leaving it unreviewed.--Peulle 09:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --MB-one 13:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Plaque_at_La-Z-Boy,_Newton,_MS.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Plaque at the La-Z-Boy office in Newton, Mississippi, USA. --Ktkvtsh 20:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Needs PC. Otherwise good. --Tagooty 02:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
  • What is PC? --Ktkvtsh 16:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
  • What is PC? --Ktkvtsh 16:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Perspective correction. Plaque should be rectangular. --Plozessor 05:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  • @Plozessor: After a little correction I think it is good now. Best regards. -- Spurzem 10:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable for me now. --Plozessor 12:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok. --Sebring12Hrs 12:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now. --Tagooty (talk) 12:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 09:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Sompura_Mahavihara_2024_17.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Panels 9original) of Sompura Mahavihara. This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Monuments 2024. --Rangan Datta Wiki 06:23, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 03:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp, sorry --Екатерина Борисова 01:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 10:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok. --Sebring12Hrs 04:38, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 09:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Pilot 111 SE Visby October 2024 01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination PIlot boat Pilot 111 SE in Visby habour.--ArildV 21:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Very good but slightly tilted (as can be seen from the houses in background), can you fix that? --Plozessor 04:22, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  • As there are no votes, moved from Discuss back to Review --Tagooty 04:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Oops, must have been a mistake, sorry. I just wanted to review. --Plozessor 05:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thank you for review. New version uploaded.--ArildV 07:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Thx, good now! --Plozessor 04:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The vote above is from Plozessor in this edit: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AQuality_images_candidates%2Fcandidate_list&diff=951399209&oldid=951398971. @Plozessor: Please remember signing your votes! --Robert Flogaus-Faust 00:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Oops, sorry, thx. Added signature. --Plozessor 04:19, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --GRDN711 05:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 09:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Porsche_Macan_4_IMG_2159.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Porsche Macan 4 in Filderstadt --Alexander-93 15:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Ok imo. --ArildV 10:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The focus is a little bit borderline, please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 17:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Given the resolution, I find the image sharpness acceptable, in any case good enough for an A4 printout. The image composition also stands out pleasantly from many other parking lot photos. Unfortunately, the rear window and roof are overexposed; if something could be done to improve this, I would support the candidate. --Smial 12:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Great composition, the overexposure could be fixed, but unfortunately the focus is off - the rear wheel is close, but the rest is out of focus. I don't think this is recoverable... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Mike --Sandro Halank 16:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 09:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)