Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 22 2023

Consensual review edit

File:Nebbia_e_nuvole_sulla_campagna_in_Rignano_sull'Arno_-_Frazione_Bombone.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Fog and clouds over the countryside in Rignano sull'Arno - Frazione Bombone.--Anna.Massini 11:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
      Support Good quality. --XRay 11:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Sorry, second view. Not good enough. It's not easy to find QIC at the WLM winners. --XRay 12:21, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment Unfortunately, the quality at 100% is not up to standard in my opinion: artifacts, overprocessed elements, apparent interpolation due to digital zoom. I'm sorry to reject it; perhaps the picture should be discussed in the CR. Best regards, --Radomianin 19:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Way too oversharpened. --Jay.Jarosz 05:18, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Far from QI. Even at 3 MP it looks extremely overcontrasted and oversharpened with pitch black shadows, white halos around objects, massive signs of NR and significant lack of details. --Plozessor 07:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Beautiful view, massive overprocessing. A pity. --Smial 18:32, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 08:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

File:গ্রাম_বাংলার_বায়োস্কোপ.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Bioscope by User:Frameofashik --Wasiul Bahar 07:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline   Support Interesting motif and good to me, but you need to give the photographer credit in the nomination. Please follow the directions at the top of the page for how to nominate photos by other Wikimedians. Also, the file description should be improved to make it more encyclopedic. -- Ikan Kekek 08:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
      Comment I missed the fact that there are no categories. Suitable categories need to be added before this photo should be promoted. -- Ikan Kekek 08:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
      Oppose The crop seems too wide. Subject is not in clear focus. --Jay.Jarosz 15:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
      Info Categorization is a bit tricky here. I added Category:Bioscope, where several of these devices from the Indian subcontinent can be found and Category:Clowns for the operator. "Bioscope" is a name for many different devices, see e.g. [:https://blog.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/bioscope/] where a video of a device very similar to that on the photo is shown. Category:Bioskop appears to be for a single device from Germany that looks quite different. Anyway, I am sending this to CR because there is both a supporting and an opposing vote. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
  Comment No issues with the crop, we see the device in its natural environment, that seems fine. Quality is borderline but still acceptable. I'd support this if nomination would be fixed (giving credit to the photographer). --Plozessor 06:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
@Plozessor I fixed the nomination part. --Wasiul Bahar 18:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
  Support I think the picture is good and the crop is ok. --Plozessor 06:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support I'm willing to support, but Wasiul, please make this type of nomination correctly from now on. -- Ikan Kekek 00:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
  • @ Ikan Kekek sorry for the mistake. I used QI nominator tool and I mistakenly erased the part of uploader name while changing the caption for QI nomination. I corrected that now. --Wasiul Bahar 18:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment I corrected the author name and added a link to their talk page because the respective user page is empty. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 19:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Messy composition. --Kallerna 20:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Kallerna --Sandro Halank 13:05, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 08:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)