Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 01 2024

Consensual review

edit

File:Brugge_-_Koeleweimolen_0495.JPG

edit

 

  • @Sebring12Hrs: I did not and would not do this. I am sorry but this must have been a coincidence. We were both reviewing this nomination more or less at the same time, both responding to this as an unreviewed item on the list. And because I must have pressed the send button later, my comment did overwrite your decline-status. But no problem, I think we pointed out mostly the same issues with this image. --Augustgeyler 06:59, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great composition. Personally I'd crop it at the left to make it symmetrical (so that the hole is in the center), but that is a matter of taste, I will not decline it due that. However, there is still purple CA around the upper part of the hole, thus   Weak oppose until that is fixed. --Plozessor 03:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment Thank everyone for your comments. Since the image needs some major fixing, I prefer this to be uploaded as a new file, if someone have the will and the skills to do it. Feel free to do it of course. :-) --Phyrexian 10:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 15:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The_Holy_Family_-_Sodoma.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination The Holy Family - Sodoma --GoldenArtists 15:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 23:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose under-exposure, better is "Il sodoma, sacra famiglia.JPG" --2015 Michael 2015 15:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support For me, this one is much better and exposure is perfect. "Il sodoma, sacra famiglia.JPG" has a disturbing reflection at the top. --Plozessor 05:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes, but I was writing about the exposure and exactly this aspect I mean. --2015 Michael 2015 (talk) 09:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't know the original painting. But I think that the photo here is much too dark. -- Spurzem 09:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Other photos of the same painting seem similarly dark to me, probably the painting it simply dark. At least I can't see any pitch black shadows here. --Plozessor 11:00, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 09:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Basilique_Saint-Donatien_et_Saint-Rogatien_2023_-_125-rec.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Statue du Christ, Basilique Saint-Donatien et Saint-Rogatien,Nantes, France. By User:François de Dijon --Augustgeyler 09:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --ArildV 08:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose not enough detail imo --MB-one 08:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Above the bar for me. --Plozessor 05:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment. The statue is too dark under the very bright window. -- Spurzem 09:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --August (talk) 07:08, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

File:At Oxford 2024 039 - Balliol College.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Balliol College, Oxford. Was declined yesterday, but this rework should fix the issues (exposure, PC). Courtesy pings: @GoldenArtists, 2015 Michael 2015, Plozessor, Sebring12Hrs, and Augustgeyler: --Mike Peel 15:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 15:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose   Warning This was declined at 22:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC). Declined candidates can not be renominated. I suggest a re-upload.--Augustgeyler 16:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support When the user makes efforts to edit the picture, he can renominate. Lol... Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 17:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Now OK (but to late improved). --2015 Michael 2015 18:04, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Was declined earlier for leaning and bad exposure, the rework fixes both those things. ReneeWrites 23:45, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Could not find an explicit rule that would forbid re-nominating declined images after they have been improved. Picture is good now. --Plozessor 06:34, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment I can't believe what I see. Don't get me wrong, I think the image is very good now and I like seeing it promoted. But I am shocked how everybody is dealing with our rules here. It is simply not allowed to re-nominate declined candidates. How many times did you guys decline nominations with the statement "This was already declined on …"? There is an archive to make it possible to track this. Simple and easy, isn't it? Now everybody is voting against this best practice procedure here. Why? And where is the red line? How many hours / days may we accept between decline and re-nominating? Let's motivate others to renominate their declined candidates! With the precedence here we would have to allow it. --Augustgeyler 15:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
It is not allowed if the image wasn't improved, but in this case, it was. So I don't understand what you don't understand. --Sebring12Hrs 17:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
@Augustgeyler: It is simply not allowed to re-nominate declined candidates, I was guessing that such a rule would exist but could not find it anywhere. Can you tell where it is written? --Plozessor 04:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
You must be right. I could not find such an explicit rule as well. --Augustgeyler 22:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support It's ok for me. Although the file name could be more specific. --Tournasol7 14:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
    • File renamed. Thanks. Mike Peel 08:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
    Mike Peel; Thanks a lot! Tournasol7 18:53, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --August (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Балхаш-2,_ТЭ33АС-0003.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination TE33AS-003 at Balkhash-2 station. Balkhash, Karaganda Region, Kazakhstan. --Красный 00:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Bgag 02:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Light from the wrong side. The side view of the train is too dark. Please discuss whether the photo is still a QI. --Spurzem 08:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Spurzem. --Plozessor 06:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment The current version is not QI. But probably fixable.--ArildV 08:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment The dust spots and the CA should be fixed as well.--Ermell 15:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 22:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Esponja_(Cinachyra),_Anilao,_Filipinas,_2023-08-21,_DD_157.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Sea sponge (Cinachyra), Anilao, Philippines --Poco a poco 16:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Underexposed and noisy. Sorry. --Ermell 09:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Done I made some improvements, over the QI bar now IMHO, please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 18:47, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 09:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Stemma_della_famiglia_Colonna.svg

edit

 

  • Nomination Coat of arms of the Colonna family --ZuppaDiCarlo 11:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Ashoppio 17:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too simple for QI --Poco a poco 18:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco a poco.--Tournasol7 14:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 09:32, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Church_bell_2017_G1.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Bronze church bell cast in 1905 -- George Chernilevsky 05:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 05:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment The bell is at the next picture upright, so which shows the reality? --2015 Michael 2015 16:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @2015 Michael 2015: This picture was already promoted. Did you want to object?
  •   Support Picture is very good. No issues with one picture showing the bell in its actual position and another picture showing it straight. --Plozessor 05:42, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support For me, this picture is spectacular. --GoldenArtists 15:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks good. --Needsmoreritalin 21:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support It's ok for me. Although the file name could be more specific. --Tournasol7 14:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --August (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Little_bee-eater_(Merops_pusillus_meridionalis)_Maputo.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Little bee-eater (Merops pusillus meridionalis) --Charlesjsharp 07:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Too small to be QI. Do you have full version to upload? --Екатерина Борисова 02:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Slightly above threshold, IMHO acceptable given the subject. --C messier 19:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support --Georgfotoart 20:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Image appears to have been run through overzealous noise reduction. There isn't any feather detail, it looks somewhat posterized. --Needsmoreritalin 21:40, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too little detail and just above the hard 2 MP limit. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:45, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Robert Flogaus-Faust. Tournasol7 14:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --August (talk) 07:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Jesus_Church.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Jesus Church --Rione Colonna 15:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment The sky is noisy (fixable?). The filename and description would be better. --Tournasol7 16:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment It's leaning at left. --Sebring12Hrs 07:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Done Ok now? Thank you --Rione Colonna 08:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 10:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Due to perspective correction the proportions are intensely distorted (see this image in comparison). --August 21:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment New work,ok now? Thank you--Rione Colonna (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. ReneeWrites 17:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Not the sharpest but in its fourth(!) version "18:04, 26 July 2024" it is OK. --2015 Michael 2015 10:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 22:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Brest_Railway_Museum_ТЭ_2596_Steam_Locomotive_2023-03-05_3216.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination ТЭ 2596 Steam Locomotive in the Brest Railway Museum. --Mike1979 Russia 06:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Too harsh light here, partially   Overexposed --Augustgeyler 08:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   New version Reduce exposition. --Mike1979 Russia 11:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment It got better. But still to harsh light. Lets see what others think. --Augustgeyler 12:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 22:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Trier,_08-12-2023_(actm.)_05.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Trier, view from the Petrisberg on the city of Trier. --Agnes Monkelbaan 04:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 09:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The dust is ruling the picture which is not OK for an city portrait. --2015 Michael 2015 14:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think it's mist, and I don't think pictures of landscapes taken in mist are inherently invalid for QI. ReneeWrites 23:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: There was fog hanging over the city of Trier that day and the photo was taken from a viewpoint high above Trier.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment If you read an article about the city of Trier and then you see this image would you be "happy" with it or would you prefer a haze / fog free pic? imho: No tourist manager would ever accept it. This may be out of scope for an QI but it is for me important because Wikimedia has millons of pictures which should never be used nor uploaded. Btw: I like landscapes with fog, where fog improves the pic it is highly appreciated. --2015 Michael 2015 09:36, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment Every town has its own beauty but no town is beautiful 24/7 all the time. To show it in different conditions is very useful not only for those who write articles about climate, environmental issues etc. but even for tourists who want to know what а town really looks like. So I don't see any problems with quality pictures that show places not as sweet as tourist managers always do. -- Екатерина Борисова (talk)
  •   Support Good quality.--Tournasol7 04:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 09:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Parchau.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination River landscape --Georgfotoart 17:38, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Below minimum height requirement. --C messier 21:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Done Sorry, new and bigger --Georgfotoart 17:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Noisy and grainy with low detail, probably due strong JPG compression. --Plozessor 09:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Not too bad. --Smial 09:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough. --Sebring12Hrs 21:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose A nice panorama with balanced light. But the image should have an information (better a template) telling about how this panorama was made. How many images had been put together here by using which kind of projection? Additionally level of detail is just below minimum IMO. Plozessor is probably right about JPG compression. --Augustgeyler 21:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Augustgeyler --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --August (talk) 07:21, 31 July 2024 (UTC)