Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 25 2024

Consensual review

edit

File:Grote_Kerk_Breda_preekstoel_detail_4.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Woodcarving of the pulpit of the Great Church of Breda --ReneeWrites 11:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Юрий Д.К. 11:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Noised and soft except central part. Below QI quality IMO. This is not a creator mistake, just poor camera --George Chernilevsky 18:11, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Per George. For a picture taken with a smartphone in low light it's actually quite good, but if you look closely you see that it was heavily processed. --Plozessor 06:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 14:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

File:St._Johann_Baptist_(Beyharting),_NO,_2024-05-20.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Die der Kirche St. Johann Baptist (Beyharting), gesehen von Nordosten. --2015 Michael 2015 11:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 11:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Beautiful image, but the church tower looks distorted because of strong perspective correction. --Екатерина Борисова 02:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support We have promoted worse examples of distortion. This one is acceptable IMO, and except for the distortion it is perfect. --Plozessor 06:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Exposure and colour saturation both a little too high, otherwise ok. --Smial 09:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality.--Tournasol7 19:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 21:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Mariä_Himmelfahrt_(Schönau),_2024-05-20.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Die Kirche Mariä Himmelfahrt in Schönau (OT von Tuntenhausen) im Frühling 2024. --2015 Michael 2015 11:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 11:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Beautiful image, but the church tower looks distorted because of strong perspective correction. --Екатерина Борисова 02:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose for now. Here I agree with Екатерина; I think compressing the image vertically would make it look better. --Plozessor 06:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support The perspective correction is well done.--Tournasol7 19:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 21:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Saint_Florian_church_in_Znin_09.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Bell tower of the St Florian church in Znin, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voiv., Poland. (By Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 10:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --ArildV 10:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The tower is not upright. --2015 Michael 2015 12:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment Are you sure about that? Every vertical line is perfectly straight.--ArildV 07:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment For me it -looks- not upright even if it is. Beside of that I also -think- it is not 100 % centered.--2015 Michael 2015 (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 21:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Brest_Railway_Museum_ФД20-1237_Steam_Locomotive_2023-03-05_3210.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination ФД20-1237 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 improved. But light is still to harsh IMO. --Augustgeyler 12:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Weak support The star at the front is burned out but otherwise it's really good. --Plozessor 06:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Юрий Д.К. 18:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 21:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Oxford_2024_039.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Balliol College, Oxford --Mike Peel 06:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 08:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I think the exposure is not OK. --2015 Michael 2015 12:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too dark indeed. --Plozessor 06:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It's leaning at right. --Sebring12Hrs 07:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    • I can fix these, but not immediately, hoping @Augustgeyler: reconsiders the decline closure. Thanks. Mike Peel 02:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 22:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

File:2024_Kłodzko,_ul._Sienkiewicza_7_(2).jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination 7 Sienkiewicza Street in Kłodzko 2 --Jacek Halicki 01:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose 'Sienkiewicza Street in Kłodzko 1' is almost equal. --2015 Michael 2015 14:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support "Not similar to other pictures" is not a relevant criteria for QI. Picture is good. --Plozessor 06:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment I disagree: "The purpose of quality images is ... the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection." --2015 Michael 2015 (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would prefer when users would chose only one (their best) image in these situations. But sadly there is no QI guideline about it. --Augustgeyler 07:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment I agree. There are too many Wikimedia uploads and therefore they will be never used but waste memory. --2015 Michael 2015 (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 21:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

File:2024_Kłodzko,_ul._Sienkiewicza_7_(3).jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination 7 Sienkiewicza Street in Kłodzko 3 --Jacek Halicki 01:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --IM3847 02:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose 'Sienkiewicza Street in Kłodzko 1' is better than this. --2015 Michael 2015 14:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support This is not FP where that would be relevant. Picture is good. --Plozessor 06:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment I disagree: "The purpose of quality images is ... the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection." --2015 Michael 2015 (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think the statement refers to Commons in general, and I agree that we should not upload many similar images. It does not directly relate to QI though, and the relevant guidelines are about composition and technical quality. So, while uploading a bunch of very similar images might be against Commons' purpose, nominating them for QI does not seem to violate QI guidelines. But anyway, I see your point and accept your opinion, I think differently though. --Plozessor 18:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality.--Tournasol7 19:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 21:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

File:A_new_office_building_under_construction_on_Hitech_City_road_(2).jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination A new office building under construction on Hitech City road --IM3847 00:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Tagooty 03:16, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Perspective distortion not or not right corrected. --2015 Michael 2015 14:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Perspective seems fine, walls are perfectly vertical. --Plozessor 09:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment "perfectly vertical" is often not given the best picture look, perspective correction is its own kind of art, i.e. in my opinion Lightroom Classic makes almost always not usbable results, the following manual correction is often also only some compromise. --2015 Michael 2015 17:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality for me.--Tournasol7 19:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 21:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

File:McLaren_570S_Spider_IMG_9947.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination McLaren 570S Spider in Echterdingen --Alexander-93 15:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --ArildV 07:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too shallow   DoF here. The front of the car is not in focus. --Augustgeyler 00:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Augustgeyler. --Sebring12Hrs 09:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 10:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Chapel_in_Münchner_Residenz.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination chapel in Münchner Residenz --AuHaidhausen 14:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --ArildV 07:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I am sorry to oppose here, but there must have gone wrong something at perspective correction. All horizontal lines are straight but the image was not taken from the centre. So the horizontal perspective looks distorted now. --Augustgeyler 00:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 09:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Weak support A bit noisy but otherwise good. --Plozessor 09:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunate lighting. --Smial 09:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Perspective correction creates something a little strange here, but acceptable. Otherwise very good for an interior shot with a long DoF. --Benjism89 19:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality.--Tournasol7 19:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 21:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Salò_at_Puch_Open_Air_2024_25.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Salò and band at the Puch Open Air in Jetzendorf, Germany --Kritzolina 10:09, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Too noisy. --C messier 19:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Sorry but I disagree, the noisy is quite evident but still acceptable for an ISO 3200 shot. --Terragio67 19:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Whether it's a photo with an ISO of 3200 or not, it's too noisy. --Sebring12Hrs 20:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment For a featured candidate image I would completely agree, perhaps for a QI candidate image your judgment is rather severe. Terragio67 06:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose QI has even more emphasis on the technical quality, and this image is clearly too noisy and too blurry for QI. --Plozessor 07:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose. The image noise is borderline, but I'm more bothered by the slight overexposure, which leads to strange colours on the forehead. If there is a RAW version that can be darkened a little so that the colour channels don't clip and remain intact, I would change my assessment. --Smial 09:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC) Ps: simply darkening the JPG usually doesn't work.
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 21:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Chiltern_Open_Air_Museum_2024_151.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination MG TD at Chiltern Open Air Museum --Mike Peel 08:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 09:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Please discuss, whether the yellow tint is good for QI. -- Spurzem 13:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Done WB tweaked, is that better? Thanks. Mike Peel 15:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment It seems a bit better. But I can not imagine that it is the correct color. It is difficult. I don't know whether the cars should be in the English racing green. Let's here what others say. Best regards -- Spurzem 15:46, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support There are other pictures of such cars with similar colors, so I guess it's ok. --Plozessor 10:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The cut mirror of the other car is distracting. --Sebring12Hrs 15:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support per Plozessor. --Smial 09:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 21:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Schloss_Neuschwanstein_(57_mm).jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Schloss Neuschwanstein (57 mm) --AuHaidhausen 14:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment Underexposed. We have a dozen other QI of the same castle from the same viewpoint so comparing is easy :-) --Benjism89 18:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree, the light is clearly acceptable at full size. --Sebring12Hrs 22:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment Good quality, but underexposed. Easy to correct. --Kallerna 08:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Done thank you --AuHaidhausen 16:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Underexposed, sorry -- Spurzem 14:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support The new version is fine imo.--ArildV 07:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 21:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Vamlingbo_kyrka_July_2024_07.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination View towards Vamlingbo church from the lychgate. --ArildV 06:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 08:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sharp and balanced shot but the top crop is to tight and spoils the composition. --Augustgeyler 10:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Actually, I don't have a problem with the top crop of the picture (if that's what you meant Augustgeyler) but I have one with the crop of the stained glass created by the photographer's position (should have walked one step forward) --Benjism89 18:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I generally don't use zoom lenses for architecture and landscape (just an explanation) so if I had taken a step forward the vault would have disappeared completely. For me the image works anyway, the image captures the feeling of walking through the lychgate and see the church through the vault. ArildV --ArildV 19:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Hey @ArildV: , I agree with you. I do like your decission to integrate the gate into your composition. It's great. I just think it is cropped too tight, so there should be a little more of the gate visible at the top to look as intentional as it was. --Augustgeyler 08:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Tight at top, but far enough for QI for me -- George Chernilevsky 06:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Though I understand the photographer's intention, the picture is a failure. It's a shame that things like that happen, but that doesn't mean that the result should be judged as a quality picture. -- Spurzem 14:40, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Per Spurzem. --Plozessor 16:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support per George. --Smial 00:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Spurzem --Tagooty 04:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Юрий Д.К. 19:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 21:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Kopfweide_bei_Klietznick_02.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination old pollard willow on the dike --Georgfotoart 12:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Nice wide angle composition. But unfortunately I can not find anything in focus here. --Augustgeyler 00:34, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment Revised, please rate --Georgfotoart 16:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Thank you. But I think sharpness and Level of detail are still too low. --August (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok for me (now). --Plozessor 16:58, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lacks details, sorry. --Tournasol7 19:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. --Sebring12Hrs 07:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others, sorry. --Benjism89 19:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 21:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Haltern_am_See,_Naturpark_Hohe_Mark,_Weizenfeld_--_2024_--_4462.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Photo art based on a photo of a wheat field in the Hohe Mark Nature Park in the district of Holtwick, Haltern am See, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Kritzolina 13:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like this image, but I have to oppose. This is not a reproduction but claims to be art itself. QIC is not prepared to promote direct artwork if not part of a photographic reproduction of an existing piece of art. I can just judge this nomination with all QIC rules we usually check. The result: The image is unsharp, looks very blurred, lacks detail, is unable to even show it's proclaimed subject and has a non visible DoF. --Augustgeyler 23:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose. Wikimedia should set up a section for blurry artworks. I could very well imagine the photo presented here as a large picture, for example in the waiting room of a doctor's office. But for me it is not a quality image that should show me an object, a landscape or a person clearly and in an appealing way. -- Spurzem 08:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Юрий Д.К. 20:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Augustgeyler. --Sebring12Hrs 07:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 09:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Vista_panoramica_dalla_fortezza_di_Bertinoro_-_Emilia-Romagna_-_GT_02-_2024-07-01.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Panoramic view from Bertinoro fortress, Emilia-Romagna, Italy. --Terragio67 20:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Incorrect use of the "Panorama" template but otherwise a great picture. --Plozessor 04:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Huge size, but sky is noisy and posterized. --Milseburg 21:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think some minor posterisation is acceptable for a 222 MP image. --Plozessor 06:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  Comment A high resolution should not be a reason for a less strict evaluation. Otherwise, upscaling could become a valid way to fix problems. --Milseburg (talk) 10:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thank you @Augustgeyler, I don't like colour banding too, so, I decided to re-elaborate the pano from 16 RAW files. Thanks for your review. --Terragio67 06:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support   Thank you. Well done. --Augustgeyler 22:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Weak support Yes, there are some minor issues that you can see when opening this picture at full resolution, but it's hard to have a perfect panorama made from 16 files. When viewed at a normal resolution, this picture is good enough for QI. --Benjism89 19:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 22:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Beautiful_view_of_the_mountains.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination View of the mountains in Katonkaragay national park. Katonkaragay District, East Kazakhstan Region, Kazakhstan. By User:Picasso.dm --Красный 07:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Georgfotoart 11:16, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Too greenish. --Milseburg 22:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Better now. --Milseburg 16:21, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Not that bad but the color looks somehow unnatural. --Plozessor 06:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good now. --Plozessor 14:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Comment Uploaded fixed version with help of Екатерина Борисова. Красный 08:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support now. Still a little too high color saturation, at least for the viewing habits of an average Central European, but a very big improvement. A really good composition of an impressive landscape. --Smial 13:05, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose The image looks over-contrasted and over-sharpened. --Augustgeyler 19:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 09:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)