Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 15 2023

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:20210715_Ναός_Παναγίας_Απειράνθου_7386.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The church of Panagia in Apeiranthos, Naxos. --C messier 20:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Plozessor 20:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Composition is not level and most of the subject (the facade) is under a shadow. Seems like this might have been the wrong time of day for the shot. --Jay.Jarosz 20:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @Jay.Jarosz: the photo has already been promoted to QI (Check the file history). --C messier 22:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   Procedural close, there was a bot issue that meant the image was promoted already but not removed from this page, the oppose vote came after that, sorry. Mike Peel 10:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

File:East_Wall_Nikolo-Peshnoshsky_Monastery_2023-09-17_8620.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination East Wall of Nikolo-Peshnoshsky Monastery --Mike1979 Russia 17:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --C messier 19:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Most of the image is covered in shadow. Subject is unclear, but seems like the wall is the main subject? Shot should be retaken when the lighting conditions are more favorable. --Jay.Jarosz 20:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @Jay.Jarosz: The photo has already been promoted to QI (check file history). --C messier 22:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   Procedural close, there was a bot issue that meant the image was promoted already but not removed from this page, the oppose vote came after that, sorry. Mike Peel (talk) 10:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Porsche_Taycan_turbo_S.jpg_

[edit]

  • Nomination Porsche Taycan turbo S in the exhibition parking lot. --Kirill Borisenko 14:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Not enough detail and clarity --MB-one 16:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
    Which details you could not see? All inscriptions (within reasonable limits) are visible. --Kirill Borisenko 19:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
     Weak oppose The whole picture is lacking contrast and has remains of significant NR (check the front wheel of the black car). It would probably be possible to fix that in processing if it wouldn't be a smartphone picture. --Plozessor 06:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No composition. --Smial 10:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:57, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

File:At_São_Paulo_2018_300.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ponte das Bandeiras, São Paulo --Mike Peel 07:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality. --Ercé 08:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose The tower is out of focus. All of the sharpness seems to be on the insignificant flagpole holder at the bottom of the image. --Jay.Jarosz 03:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Focus is on a small insignificant part of the bridge, majority of the picture is out of focus and blurry. --Plozessor 17:07, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 09:43, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Międzychód_zespół_stacji_kolejowej_dworzec_24._08._2013_p.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Międzychód train station. By User:Przykuta --Mechanik rowerowy 20:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Perspective distortion, that alone would be correctable. But also not very sharp, especially on the left side, and a few chromatic aberrations (also on the left). Altogether, these flaws do not make a QI picture for me. --Jakubhal 05:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC) I withdraw my vote here after the update --Jakubhal 05:39, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. I think it is okay now, good quality in my opinion. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 15:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Perspective seems fine, verticals are vertical. Overall sharpness/detail is borderline but seems just acceptable. At lower resolution this shot looks really nice. --Plozessor 15:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 09:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

File:20231108_blue_jay_goodwin_dock_PND08988.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Blue Jay, East Hartford, CT USA --Pdanese 16:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose The background is fake --Poco a poco 18:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
    Not fake. You can take a look at 2 other images that I uploaded from the same "session." The bird was nice enough to land in front of some dead autumn foliage with a lot of yellow/dark orange. I suppose you could argue that the background is fake in all 3 pics. If so, not much I can do. --Pdanese 15:24, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
     Support Background doesn't look fake, just with some distance. In my opinion this shot is really good. --Plozessor 15:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
     Support Agreed, doesn't look fake and the shot looks really good overall! --Jay.Jarosz 17:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 09:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

File:VdA_square_brassens.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of Square Georges Brassens, in Villeneuve d'Ascq, France --Velvet 08:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Question Good quality, but has the architect of the buildings been dead long enough for them to be in the public domain? -- Ikan Kekek 08:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
    These are social housing units dating from the 1970s that have been renovated several times since then (in 2007 and again in 2022). I don't know whether the public domain issue arises for this type of building (if so, most of Villeneuve d'Ascq cannot be photographed). --Velvet 12:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose I don't think public domain is an issue for social housing. I do however find the shadow in the bottom left to be very distracting though. Would it be possible to re-take this shot closer to golden hours? --Jay.Jarosz 15:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
     Support I don't think some shadow in the foreground is an issue, so I support if there's in fact no copyright issue. -- Ikan Kekek 00:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 11:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Can't judge the legal aspect. Purely from technical perspective, this is a good photo. --Plozessor 17:03, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 09:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Truck_at_Highway_of_Hyderabad_2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Truck at Highway of Hyderabad --Wasiul Bahar 07:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose sadly not enough detail --MB-one 14:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
     Support My mistake! Detail is actually good.--MB-one 14:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose MB-One, I think your first reaction was the right one. Details are a bit blurry despite the truck being parked/stationary. The composition is not great either. --Jay.Jarosz 14:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Overall too dark, blurred, low detail and significant NR (check the plants on the side). --Plozessor 16:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Too dark. It was not the best time to take a photo of the truck. -- Spurzem 11:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:56, 14 November 2023 (UTC)