Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 23 2023

Consensual review edit

File:Canon_EF-M_32mm_F1.4_STM_lens-bottom_uncapped_PNr°0805.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: The bottom uncapped side of a Canon EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens --D-Kuru 07:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Screws out of focus, background colour/WB --Аныл Озташ 12:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Spurzem 12:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Аныл Озташ --Ermell 14:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Ermell 14:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

File:People_playing_cricket_in_Toronto_31.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination People playing cricket on weekends in Toronto --Fabian Roudra Baroi 02:37, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --MB-one 03:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Geo location missing and categorization must be better. --XRay 04:11, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment The license includes commercial use. So please add the permission of the person. --XRay 16:01, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  • @XRay: Apart from the fact that the person cannot be recognized here, the question of personal rights often arises. For example, what is necessary, if I photograph a football game? Does all players then have to agree to the publication of the photo in which they can be seen? – Another point: I would crop the picture squarely to be judged here, then it would be perfect as I think. At the moment I have to look too hard to find out where the player is. Geo location I don't need. Best regards -- Spurzem 19:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  • @XRay: I had a verbal agreement with them as I volunteered to take pictures for their use as well as for Wikimedia. Also, They are a local team who plays local tournaments regularly.
  •   Neutral Categories and geo location fixed. --XRay 15:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment So, this is a good-quality photo, but the person is recognizable. Would a personality rights template be sufficient? -- Ikan Kekek 07:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
IMO as they are a local team/franchise that plays tournaments regularly, it wouldn't be much of an issue. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 20:34, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support, good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 21:10, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Beautiful, good quality -- Spurzem 15:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support --1municipio 18:06, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 11:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Charleroi_-_maison_Bertinchamps_-_2023-08-08_-_02.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Belgium) - Maison Bertinchamps, Art deco house, constructed in 1926 by the architects Marcel Depelsenaire and Jules Laurent. --Jmh2o 09:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion

*  Oppose Incomplete english description --F. Riedelio 15:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  •   Comment Link [[:en:Charleroi|Charleroi]] ([[:en:Belgique|Belgium]]) anstatt [[:en:Belgium|Belgium]]) --F. Riedelio 06:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Done --Jmh2o 10:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support IMO nothing wrong about the description. Not the most beautiful composition, but for me a QI --Michielverbeek 04:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality and the English-language description is fine at this point, but I don't think English-language descriptions are required for QI. What about for people who do not read or write English? This is an international site. -- Ikan Kekek 07:59, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 11:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

File:20230213_Schneckentor.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination View up to the Schneckentor in Passau --FlocciNivis 16:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Would you crop the car? if it should be a QI of the gate, then that's a disturbing element --Poco a poco 20:13, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment Cropping away the car would imo destroy the composition with the winding road --FlocciNivis 09:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but then I have to oppose. The nearby parked car cannot be essential in the composition of a gate to become QI. Too prominent and disturbing to me. Move to CR if you like and we discuss it. --Poco a poco 07:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I disagree, the car is only a small portion of the picture and in my opinion doesn't disturb from the main subject, the gate. --FlocciNivis 19:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Very sharp and good good perspective. The car isn't so disturbing to my eyes. --Sebring12Hrs 06:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support The car is a normal part of the surroundings, it is not disturbing to me either. The discription clearly says "View up to the Schneckentor", so it is not merely a QI of the building, but of the area around it. --Kritzolina 10:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support per others. Parked cars are normal to see on the sides of streets. Not an FP, but surely a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 13:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm not going to oppose, but for me, that ugly car destroys the composition. For an image of the Schneckentor, it's useless anyway. I'd crop it away, if it was my decision. --Palauenc05 21:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Believe me, I understand what you say. And even if this image gets QI then the topic should be "gate and car parked next to it" or something like that Poco a poco 01:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
The description of the image does not match the picture. If it were to be a good photo of the Schneckentor, the garbage cans and bulky waste would also have to have been removed beforehand. As a photo of the street, I like the shot. -- Spurzem 10:34, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
I updated the description now to be more accurate of the content --FlocciNivis 21:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
If you want to be consequent, please, add a category of the car model. Poco a poco 02:20, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition. Some steps upwards, portrait orientation instead of landscape and the distracting car could have been avoided. --Smial 14:47, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's no QI for me, not because of the car but because of the rubbish. -- Spurzem 19:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support I see it as a realistic scene of city life. Yes, there are cars and garbage bins in our towns, it's just real life as it is. Technically I do not see any significant problems. QI IMO. --LexKurochkin 08:41, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Oh well; let's take credit for the fact that bulky waste should probably be picked up the next day. But then I wouldn't have taken photos. However, I have the impression that the junk has been there for a long time and may be longer. And this is normal cityscape? -- Spurzem 20:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
In many cases photography gives us no second chances. Maybe that bulky waste will be removed next day, but may be next day road reconstruction will be started, the street will be closed for a month, and after the reconstruction will be changed dramatically. It is also a question of photographer's personal circumstances. For example, I travelled to Perth (Australia) on business trip, and thus had only about 8 hours to take photos. The day was rainy with dull lighting, but nevertheless I am happy I used that chance. Several months later I had another chance to visit Perth and that time I had two days with better weather conditions, but taking photos during my first visit I did not know whether it would be possible or not. On the other hand realistic genres of photography (documentary photography, street photography, photojournalism) are quite valuable and highly respected, and, IMO, suit well the purpose of Wikimedia Commons. --LexKurochkin 09:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Hallo LexKurochkin, You're right: photographers often don't get a second chance. And that is why it is often not possible for him to take a quality picture. A pity. Best regards -- Spurzem 16:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 11:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Altare_maggiore_di_giuseppe_rinaldi_(1850_ca.),_con_copia_della_salus_populi_romani_detta_madonna_del_gonfalone,_attr._a_livio_agresti,_xvi_secolo,_05.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Salus Popoli Romani painting in Santa Lucia del Gonfalone in Rome, Italy --Sailko 15:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --MoulinoisHy 19:31, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree (sharpness, bottom crop). --Аныл Озташ 20:22, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good for me and sharp enough -- Spurzem 09:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Аныл Озташ. -- Ikan Kekek 14:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support ok for me. --Palauenc05 21:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Аныл Озташ. --PaestumPaestum 09:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Аныл Озташ --Sandro Halank 13:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 11:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Таємничий_осінній_ліс.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Hutsulshchyna National Nature Park, Ukraine By User:Sergnester --Luda.slominska 12:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality (LoD/noisy). --Аныл Озташ 15:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice colours, ok for me. --Palauenc05 15:59, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support I also feel this image merits QI. --GRDN711 17:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As told here several times, I accept downscaling in photos if it is reasonably justified. But less than 5 MPixel from a 12 MPixel camera is too poor for such a motif. For a decent print in A4 size you need 6 Mpixels or more. A beautiful motif that you would like to use larger. --Smial 12:49, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support I also like this photo and think that it qualifies for QI. It is not necessarily downscaled (which would be against the rules), but it might have been cropped. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice colours and composition, but insufficient detail. --Tagooty 01:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Nice, but quite noisy and too small for that kind of picture --Jakubhal 16:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose nice colours and composition, but insufficient detail --Sandro Halank 13:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 11:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)