Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 27 2024

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:German_Luftwaffe_Eurofighter_Typhoon_of_the_31st_Wing_at_Nellis_AFB,_Nevada_(USA),_9_March_2020_(200309-F-NX702-019).JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination A German Luftwaffe pilot of Tactical Air Wing 31 at Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada (USA), 9 March 2020. (by Cobatfor --Hotolmo22 17:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 09:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Seems it's not created by Wikimedia user --Екатерина Борисова 01:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not qualified for QI due not by a Commons user. --Plozessor 05:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 14:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Paris_6e_-_Jardin_du_Luxembourg_-_Fontaine_Médicis_-_Statue_en_haut_à_droite.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Paris 6e - Jardin du Luxembourg - Fontaine Médicis - Statue en haut à droite (by Romainbehar) --Sebring12Hrs 12:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The face of the sculpture is too dark. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 15:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Very natural light and shadows, no details lost. Good and realistic imo. --ArildV 18:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks very good. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality image for me. --Bgag 04:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture. Light is not optimal but acceptable. --Plozessor 05:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 14:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

File:St_Martin_church_in_Podgajci_Podravski_(2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Martin church in Podgajci Podravski, Osijek-Baranja County, Croatia. --Tournasol7 05:25, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed or very unfortunate lighting for an object like this. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 15:37, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
    After brightening it is better. -- Spurzem 19:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Bad weather, but not dark, and very sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 15:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark as it is. I guess simple brightness stretching could improve it significantly. --Plozessor 05:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Has been brightened and is good now! --Plozessor 17:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 14:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

File:West_wall_of_New_Jerusalem_Monastery.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wall of New Jerusalem Monastery --Vsatinet 18:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose no detail on dark parts --Kallerna 20:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, but what details you can't see here? --Vsatinet 20:48, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
    User:Kallerna - ? --Vsatinet 20:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Shadows are too dark. --Milseburg 12:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Way too dark, also questionable composition with these three guys walking towards the camera. --Plozessor 05:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 14:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Pandava_Ghallu_12.jpg

[edit]

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 14:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Daher_TBM-910,_EBACE_2019,_Le_Grand-Saconnex_(EB190166).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Daher TBM-910 on static display at EBACE 2019 --MB-one 13:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good image quality. --Indrajitdas 23:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As for a quality image the whole aircraft shall be depicted; unfortunately, a part of the left winglet is cropped. --Mosbatho 17:55, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Mosbatho, also unfavorable composition with the other, similar-looking aircrafts in the background so that the subject doesn't stand out, the legs of the workers behind the aircraft body etc.; also underexposed. --Plozessor 05:28, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunate crop at left. --Sebring12Hrs 12:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 14:14, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

File:North_Ridge,_Korle-Klottey_(P1090870).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Headquarters of CalBank in North Ridge, Greater Accra --MB-one 13:54, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose bad crop --Kallerna 20:08, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
@Kallerna: Could you please be more specific? --MB-one 21:29, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Kallerna, too much street and too little headquarters. --Plozessor 05:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment And it needs PC a bit at right. --Sebring12Hrs 12:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 14:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Woman_with_hat_in_red_dress,_North_Beach_SF.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Woman in a red dress in North Beach, San Francisco --Radomianin 21:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 00:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but in my opinion it's unclear what is this picture about. --Vsatinet 19:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your objection. To answer your question, the photo belongs to the genre of street photography. But please specify your reason for rejection, what technical issues does the photo have? Best regards, --Radomianin 20:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your point of view. As I understand it, you are referring to documentary photography, which often overlaps with street photography. Because street photography shows not only events, but also scenes, like in this case. However, if you look at the appropriate category, it is clear that the term street photography is broad and this shot falls into that category. As for the quality of the image, I am not sure that your objection can be accepted as a reason for rejection. This forum is only about the technical aspects of an image. Best regards, -- Radomianin (talk) 10:44, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Sorry for my poor English, but by "events" I meant something interesting, that is, "scenes" too. I refer on street photography as on something in which you can find a plot or point of view, not as any photo taken on street. Here I don't see a scene, but only women's back. It seems to me that this picture could have been interesting, for example, with a different crop - if the woman's figure in bright clothes contrasted with the faded colors of the street. As for technical aspects - in my opinion, frame construction and choice of plans is a very important technical aspect of photography (as Commons:Image guidelines says). But if criteria of QI are only right exposition, enough sharp, сorrect transfer of perspective and so on - let's it be so. Vsatinet 11:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
⦁ Thank you for expressing your opinion. Your English is good and I understand you, everything is fine. If we are talking about the composition of the image, I would like to give my view: As described in the retouching template on the file page, I deliberately toned down the saturation of the surroundings to give more emphasis to the woman in the eye-catching red dress. On the right there is a red wall and on the left a red car, whose dominance I wanted to reduce. I also cropped the picture according to the rule of thirds, so that the viewer's gaze coincides with hers. During our stay in San Francisco, I photographed many street scenes, such as street musicians or a shoeshine man. I think this spontaneous snapshot during our time in SF is my best, not only regarding composition and light, but also concerning non-identifiability, which for me is an important aspect of not violating her privacy in terms of ethical responsibility. Best regards, --Radomianin 12:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Picture is good, focus is good, composition is good for the intention. Not everybody will find this scene interesting, but IMO that is not relevant for QI. --Plozessor 14:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support on the lines of Plozessor. The quality is good, light and colours are very good, IMHO also the subject of the photo is clear (focus and depth of field clearly emphasize the woman) and the composition is fitting. I have often seen similar photos subsumed under “street photography”, but there is no need at all to quarrel over this classification: the “Quality image” badge is independent from the photographic genre. – Aristeas 15:36, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The quality of this shot is good and I don't see any reason to reject this image. --Frank Schulenburg 19:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice image, good composition and good quality -- Spurzem 20:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Beautiful and well done photo. I wish it also could be FP though I doubt it is possible. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 02:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't have a problem with the composition, really, but I don't like that the image appears to have been downsized.--Peulle 07:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  • @Peulle: Thank you for your objection, which I understand. However, the image was not reduced in size, but cropped to get the current composition. Best, --Radomianin 08:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me also --Jakubhal 07:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Vsatinet. --Kallerna 07:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Oke voor mij.--Famberhorst 05:18, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 9 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 14:13, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Paris_20e_-_Cimetière_du_Père_Lachaise_-_Tombe_de_Consuelo_Fould_-_La_Conscience_terrassant_le_Vice_et_l'Injustice.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Conscience overcoming Vice and Injustice --Romainbehar 20:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose [Removed opposing vote per comment "new version looks OK" below --Plozessor 05:31, 24 November 2024 (UTC)] CA's along the contour of the statues (especially the upper hand) --Екатерина Борисова 02:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Updated image removing aberration, also lightened globally --Romainbehar 14:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't understand what's going on here. I did not decline this image, I just made a comment, and I don't know who turned "Comment" into "Oppose". And anyway, I think the new version looks OK. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
  • @Екатерина Борисова: Image cannot be moved to discussions unless there's a vote, so as this was moved to discussions, your comment was taken or misunderstood as an opposing vote I guess. Removed it now per your comment above. --Plozessor 05:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
 Comment These misunderstandings have arisen regularly since it became customary to discuss quality defects in the list above. In my opinion, this is the wrong place for this, as it makes the list unnecessarily long and confusing. Some QI candidates rot there for weeks until someone finally has the mercy to put a "decline", which would have been justified from the start. There is also no sensible automatic mechanism for discussing in the list, so "<br />" is tinkered with until the candidate ends up here in the discussion section after all, justified or misleading, where you then have to fiddle around again manually to make the section readable and to find out whether a comment, a "pro" or a "con" was meant. Decide in the list for a pro or a con, and discuss controversial cases in the discussion section, that's what it's for. --Smial 11:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 21:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Picture is good. --Plozessor 09:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 14:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

File:S-charl,_Clemgia_zijrivier_van_de_Inn._12-10-2024._(d.j.b)_07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination S-charl, rapids in the mountain stream Clemgia, a tributary of the Inn.
    --Famberhorst 05:16, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 05:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I don't think these are natural colors and the water looks like plastic due to intensive processing IMO. Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 01:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me.--Tournasol7 05:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Can't see anything wrong here. The water looks like it does due to (probably intentional) long exposure. --Plozessor 05:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
     Comment Just want to clarify my objection. This picture looks more like a wallpaper generated by AI than a natural landscape. It seems ugly and unnatural to me. No offense to the photographer, of course. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:58, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overprocessed and partly noisy. --Smial 18:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: The photo was taken with a long exposure time (8 sec.) on purpose. This was done with a gray filter. This will make the water look smooth. That was the intention. I did not sharpen the photo any more.--Famberhorst 18:48, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support With 8 s exposure time for a fast flowing alpine river the water looks as it looks like here. Colors are ok, too. --Zinnmann 18:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Юрий Д.К. 23:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Rbrechko 12:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --GRDN711 19:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Colours look fine and the noise is on a very low level. – Aristeas 15:43, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Great Image Good quality --Tzim78 13:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I prefer the version already promoted. --Kallerna 17:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support This is what you can expect from an intentionaly-long-exposed picture of a mountain river, OK for me. --Benjism89 18:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --PaestumPaestum 08:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Total: 11 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 14:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)