Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 22 2024

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

Consensual review

[edit]

Al Akhawayn University in Ifrane

[edit]

  • Nomination Al Akhawayn University in Ifrane --User:Mounir Neddi 21:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Question Why is that here without any vote? From my side,  Oppose for now because it's tilted/rotated. Can be fixed though. --Plozessor 04:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Clear tilt.--Peulle 06:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Blühendes_Barock_-_Schüssele-See_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Schüssele Lake with fountain, Blühendes Barock, Ludwigsburg, Germany --Llez 04:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 07:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA in the top of the tree --Michielverbeek 07:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for the hint --Llez 11:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Indeed, it's looking better, QI for me now. --Michielverbeek 06:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  • @MB-one: Please remember to change "Discuss" to "Decline"/"Promotion" when you execture the decision. Otherwise the bot won't do anything.--Peulle 06:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --MB-one 08:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Val_Montanaia.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: View on Val Montanaia and the "campanile" in the Parco naturale delle Dolomiti Friulane (Q683241) By User:Scosse --Civvì 08:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Phyrexian 09:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Looks good but also heavily downsized. --Milseburg 11:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, the camera is capable of a massive 60MP and this is only 6. A missed opportunity for a spectacular landscape shot.--Peulle 11:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support It's still 6 MP and razor-sharp and otherwise perfect. --Plozessor 07:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
@Plozessor: I have become quite tolerant of the application of the downsample rule, but I would not water it down so much. --Milseburg 09:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support It's still good. --Sebring12Hrs 11:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Downsampling is specifically against the image guidelines. If people want to ignore that rule there should be a discussion around changing the guidelines, but as it stands this image is ineligible. BigDom 14:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
 Comment We don't even know whether this image has been downsampled, it could as well be cropped.
 Comment If it is a crop, the author has to ask himself why he chose a setting that was far too large when taking the photo. In his portfolio, all images are smaller than the camera allows.--Milseburg 18:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
@Milseburg: Yes, that's right. Still, unsure what to do. Yes, if you take the QI guidelines to the letter, downsampling is listed as undesired. On the other hand, even if downsampled, this picture is by far better than many other pictures that are promoted QI. This is a basic issue with QI anyway, see the discussion here. A picture taken with a 60 MP professional camera and then downscaled to 20 MP, be it as perfect and razor-sharp as can be, is not QI because it's downscaled, while a slightly blurry and washed out 12 MP picture of the same scene taken with a smartphone is QI because it's not downscaled. --Plozessor (talk) 19:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Additional comment: The author could simply remove the EXIF data, then we wouldn't know that it's downscaled and would gladly promote it ... --Plozessor 03:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
These are all arguments you can use against continuing to use the guideline. You have to do that on the general discussion page. It's not the first time. We still have the guidline. We have to evaluate images here that were taken with very different performance devices. I think it's entirely appropriate that users of high-quality devices are subject to corresponding requirements. Here it looks to me as if the author has scaled the image down to make it appear better quality, especially in terms of sharpness. It must also be remembered that the author is not the nominator. The author could have downscaled it out of indifference to receiving a QI award. Or he is keeping the high-resolution original in reserve for possible sale. We don't know. It is questionable for me that professionals have to put in less effort to operate their expensive cameras than amateurs with small devices.--Milseburg (talk) 07:01, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I did mention that "on the general discussion page", but no one responded... --Plozessor 08:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
@Plozessor: The last discussion about that I remenber you can found here: Commons talk:Quality images candidates/Archive 21#Again: downsized candidates --Milseburg 09:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Sorry to intervene, I will try to contact the author to ask if they are willing to upload a better resolution version of this photo. This is often an issue with users who only participate to WL* contests but I think this picture deserves the attempt. Many thanks! --Civvì 10:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 06:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)