Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 13 2024

Consensual review

edit

File:Professor_Muhammad_Yunus-_Building_Social_Business_Summit_(8758300102).jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus. By User:WikiPedant --RockyMasum 17:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Apparently not taken by a Commons user. --Plozessor 04:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  • @Plozessor: Did you vote twice on the same nomination here? I think this can not be counted. --August (talk) 08:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I wanted to remove the first vote but that didn't work. --Plozessor 16:11, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 04:40, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

File:AC_BD_Annuntiatenbach_24.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Cultural heritage monument in Aachen --Grunpfnul 16:54, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment Graffiti is problematic because you rarely know what is written there --Georgfotoart 09:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment As a part of the building, the graffiti should be in the documentation of the building top --Grunpfnul 10:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment That's right. The only question is what is written there. Is it art or are they negative sayings? --Georgfotoart 19:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support What could be written in the graffiti that would disqualify the image for QI? --Plozessor 09:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't know any of them, for me it's like a foreign language --Georgfotoart 16:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't get the problem here. The only critic I could point out is the intense level of perspective correction applied here. But it is OK for QI. --Augustgeyler 19:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't want to agree with something I don't know what it means. The image itself is fine. --Georgfotoart 08:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 21:19, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Riedel_Imme_100_noBG.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Motorcycle "Riedel Imme" 1948/49 --Auge=mit 14:10, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality -- Spurzem 21:05, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose A very straight and usefull image. But its resolution is borderline. Scaled so small it should be sharp. But it is too soft. --Augustgeyler 19:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Neutral It did improve. --Augustgeyler 19:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Agree that it's borderline but IMO it's just above the bar. --Plozessor 09:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment If it is allowed during the application process, I could subtly sharpen the image (using "unsharp mask")...--Auge=mit (talk) 13:59, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Sure. --Plozessor 15:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  Done I did: very gentle sharpening (only the motorcycle, not the background and shadows)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 21:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

File:St._Petersburg._Alexander_Column._Reflection_of_lanterns_on_the_cobblestones_of_the_Palace_Square.jpg

edit

 

  •   Done I improved the description according to your suggestion.   Thank you. --Augustgeyler 08:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thanks for the new description. But I still doubt the technical quality of the photo. First of all it's too dark and too yellow even for the night cityscape. Cobblestones look sharp enough but the lantern is blurry. Perhaps the reflection does not have to be sharp? Let's hear what other users have to say. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think colours are OK and sharpness is exactly what I would expect from such a composition. It is well exposed and not too dark. It is dark due to the fact that we have a reflection of pitch black night sky within the water. But let's see what others think. --Augustgeyler 08:02, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Interesting composition and adequate quality. --Plozessor 09:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 21:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

File:León_(Panthera_leo),_parque_nacional_Serengueti,_Tanzania,_2024-05-26,_DD_31.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Lion (Panthera leo), Serengeti National Park, Tanzania --Poco a poco 16:55, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment A lot of green CA. And could use a bit more clarity. --Plozessor 04:20, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Done, thank you --Poco a poco 14:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, CA ist mostly gone (now there are few purple remains) but in general it's still not clear/sharp enough IMO. Feel free to object and move it to discussions. --Plozessor 04:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes, please, let's discuss. I've uploaded a new version, this is a QI (at the latest now). --Poco a poco 07:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support now, latest version is good indeed. --Plozessor 09:29, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 21:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

File:North_Fields_Testa_Lungnak_Zanskar_Jun24_A7CR_01140.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Fields north of Testa village, Lungnak valley, Zanskar --Tagooty 00:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment I can see some purple CAs on tje right mountain. --Sebring12Hrs 11:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  • @Sebring12Hrs: I don't see any CA even at 200% zoom. Please mark the location. --Tagooty 04:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment Moving to CR for other opinions. --Tagooty 16:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I don't have my computer, but my phone, I can't add notes. Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 16:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment There are traces of purple CA around the snowfields at the top right. --ArildV 18:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Done @ArildV and Sebring12Hrs: Thanks for the reviews. Removed purple CA. Please review the new version. --Tagooty 04:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks, good now. --Sebring12Hrs 10:28, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Thank you. Clearly QI imo.--ArildV 13:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 21:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Kirchspiel,_ehem._Sondermunitionslager_Visbeck,_Site_Security_Control_Center,_Wachstube,_Blick_nach_außen_--_2024_--_4570.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination: Guardroom (view through the window to the entrance) in the Site Security Control Center at the Dülmen-Visbeck Special Ammunition Depot, Dernekamp hamlet, Kirchspiel, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 07:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
      Info In case anyone is wondering about the blurred spots: These are stains and scratches on the glass of the window that cannot be removed. Given the age of the object, this is normal. --XRay 06:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Oppose I appreciate, that the defects are due to the window glass being old. But for this motif, it doesn't matter IMO. The same view could have been shot from in front of the defective window. --MB-one 09:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment However, this would not achieve the effect of being able to see all the way to the entrance from the guardroom. But that was very important to me for this picture. --XRay 05:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok with the explanation. "View from the guardroom." --Plozessor 07:45, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz 07:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Doesn't make it for me, sorry. A shot through the glass of a historic window would be interesting if you could see some elements of this window, such as its frame. But if the only elements you can see of this window are blurred spots, what's the point ? This picture would be the same if it had been taken through a dirty 21st-century window. Per MB-one, this should have been shot from in front of the window. --Benjism89 08:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. --Sebring12Hrs 22:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Юрий Д.К. 20:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Augustgeyler 21:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)