Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 01 2023

Consensual review edit

File:Woman_peeling_potatoes_-_Vincent_Van_Gogh.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Woman peeling potatoes - Vincent Van Gogh --GoldenArtists 20:22, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose You did not take a photo of the whole painting. The bottom crop is not well done and it differs from the real painting --Michielverbeek 05:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment If the second photo is accurate, this is not the whole composition. -- Ikan Kekek 01:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I had only taken out holes,however is it okay now? Thank you --GoldenArtists 08:32, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support I have opposed the painting in first instance because the wooden shoe (klomp) was a bit cut on the bottom. But now it is okay. --Michielverbeek 20:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Spurzem 12:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Ein_halb_002_2023_04_09.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Stuffed half eggs as an appetiser
    --F. Riedelio 07:37, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Image seems soft overall - 1/30th second shutter speed may have contributed. --GRDN711 13:53, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks like there is DoF problem as some parts are sharp enough. --LexKurochkin 06:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak   Oppose I think the image sharpness is sufficient for a suitable print in A4 size. But I am very unhappy with the lighting, because the object cut off in the upper right corner of the image seems to cast a shadow that is very disturbing in the upper third of the image. --Smial 11:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks good at 50% of full size and not bad at 100%, so I think it's OK. -- Ikan Kekek 01:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Model_name,_Zenit-E_(export_version,_1974)_-_0037-64.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Model name, Zenit-E (export version, 1974) --Аныл Озташ 18:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Doesn't capture the whole camera, shallow dof --Mike Peel 20:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
This photo is supposed to be a close-up of the model name. In the description box the photo series to which it belongs is linked - there you will find more detail shots as well as shots of the whole camera. --Аныл Озташ 00:18, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support While the center of the image has convincing sharpness, the lens seems to me to drop a bit in performance towards the edges. I would stop down one to two stops more in the future to compensate. Overall, though, the photo is good enough for QIC. The shallow depth of field is not a problem with close-ups like this, in my opinion. --Smial 13:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support. Good for me -- Spurzem 10:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good. @Аныл Озташ: Please edit the Summary/Description to say it is only the model name. --Tagooty 17:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
It is in the file name like in the other files of the series too. If it's not clear in the first moment, I consider editing the description of the photos used in the series. --Аныл Озташ 21:11, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
If I were you, I would definitely add the necessary information to the descriptions. Files are often renamed here on commons by completely uninvolved smart alecks because of some invented standardisation criteria, better sortability or simply according to personal preferences (you could also call it arbitrariness). --Smial 08:27, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good photo, but yes, spell out what the viewer is looking at in the file description. It's great that you have galleries like "Other versions" on the page, but it's only helpful to add a basic description in the "Description" tab. -- Ikan Kekek 01:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Iron_Bark_Creek,_Wallsend.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Iron Bark Creek, Wallsend. Hopefully, no one will ignore this image over two weeks of waiting. AdamDaleyAUS 04:16, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment Sharpness could be better, image tilted CCW (please check perspective), geo location missing, categorization must be better
    •   Comment COMMENT: Tilted which way? It's not necessary for this image. As I explained I tried to add coordinates but they were not pin pointing the location. This camera doesn't do GEO. AdamDaleyAUS 04:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
    •   Comment Great to see other regulars here high fiving, but I come here ever few years and get ingnored. I know you're all bed buddies. AdamDaleyAUS 04:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
      •   Comment An unfriendly comment certainly doesn't help. Look at the verticals, please. They are inclined to the left. The categories do not say anything about the channel to be viewed. The geo-coordinates are certainly not mandatory, but help to find the place or to show it on maps. Geo-coordinates can also be added later. --XRay 04:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
        •   Comment You referring to the poles on the right or left of the channel. There is no category for this. The closest thing was the area location. These poles have been placed over 100 years ago and are not intended to be straight up and down. AdamDaleyAUS 04:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
        •   Comment Maybe I could read up the dead electricians and say "Hey, come back from the dead to fix that pole. XRay said it's not straight! Doubt that'll happen any time soon! What do you want me to do for the verticals? Hold them up till I take the picture again? AdamDaleyAUS 04:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
          •   Oppose Please have a look to the building at the right and the fence at the left. BTW: Please have a look to the contrast value. --XRay 04:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
          •   Info I give up. The comments are too rude for me. --XRay 05:00, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
            •   Comment If I was told two weeks ago about all of these so-called problems. I can't ask the owner of the building if their building has been fixed over the years. That's unrealistic. As for the poles on either side of the channel, they are well over 100 years and unfortunately, either size for the grassed and concrete walls was done over 100 years ago. Unfortunately, if they weren't there all these years ago the street would flood. If it wasn't for the people before us, we'd be in shit, today. Can't help it if things are not done right over the years. The footbridge is the too also years old. Things were done with less money back in those days. This was going to be the last image for my old account. AdamDaleyAUS 05:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Change to discuss. It does mostly look good, but it does definitely need a PC correction, since everything on the right seems to be leaning in to some extent, but good to get comments from others more knowledgable about PC. --Mike Peel 17:04, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
    •   Comment I've been away since July 21st. I could sharpen it. Unfortunately, I cannot rebuild the building. It is clear that the building has had structural damage to it hence the height of the roofing. I can't fix something that is out of my control. AdamDaleyAUS 04:41, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
      •   Comment Sharpened. Cropped the fence out as it has had damage to it, including the building has had structural damage hence how the roofing looks. Can't fix something that isn't under my control. The Categories, this is one part through Wallsend. This creek runs through several places. Adamdaley 04:58, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would like to reiterate my contra. Both on the left and on the right side are elements that should be vertical. They are probably just as vertical in nature. We are not talking about fence posts that are always at an angle. The contrast is insufficient. In addition, the image is now clearly oversharpened. The rather unfriendly comments do nothing to improve the image. --XRay 05:10, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
    •   Comment Still can't fix something that I have no way of fixing. Just old things are not always as they seem. That's the way it is. Otherwise, we wouldn't have things done before quality was not done at a high quality. Blame our older Australians. AdamDaleyAUS 05:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
      •   Comment In reality what you're talking about those poles, are infact not straight up and down. Especially the ones on the right (looking at the image) where the ground is more unlevel. Sorry guys, can't fix those in reality. AdamDaleyAUS 22:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment Oversharpened and overexposed. The previous version looked much better and more normal. I'll have to oppose if this is the version that we have to consider. -- Ikan Kekek 01:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
    •   Comment Reverted the sharpened image as it was the default sharpness for Adobe PhotoShop. AdamDaleyAUS 06:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)