Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 23 2021

Consensual review edit

File:Tiburón_azul_(Prionace_glauca),_canal_Fayal-Pico,_islas_Azores,_Portugal,_2020-07-27,_DD_02.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Blue shark (Prionace glauca), Faial-Pico Channel, Azores Islands, Portugal. --Poco a poco 10:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Unsharp & noisy. --Kallerna 09:50, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment I disagree --Poco a poco 23:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 10:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Tiburón_azul_(Prionace_glauca),_canal_Fayal-Pico,_islas_Azores,_Portugal,_2020-07-27,_DD_09.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Blue shark (Prionace glauca), Faial-Pico Channel, Azores Islands, Portugal. --Poco a poco 10:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Usharp & noisy. --Kallerna 09:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment I disagree --Poco a poco 23:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 10:48, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Tiburón_azul_(Prionace_glauca),_canal_Fayal-Pico,_islas_Azores,_Portugal,_2020-07-27,_DD_33.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Blue shark (Prionace glauca), Faial-Pico Channel, Azores Islands, Portugal. --Poco a poco 10:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Usharp & noisy. --Kallerna 09:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment I disagree --Poco a poco 23:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose At least the eyes are not sharp. --Augustgeyler 06:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 08:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Tiburón_azul_(Prionace_glauca),_canal_Fayal-Pico,_islas_Azores,_Portugal,_2020-07-27,_DD_18.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Blue shark (Prionace glauca), Faial-Pico Channel, Azores Islands, Portugal. --Poco a poco 13:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Noisy and undetailed. -- Alvesgaspar 22:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Undetailed and noisy? I'm started to get really fed up here. --Poco a poco 23:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 10:54, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Bonnet_Macaque_Eating_Banana.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Bonnet Macaque Eating Banana --Mydreamsparrow 19:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 20:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now - good photo but needs better categorization than "Monkey" and some location information. -- Ikan Kekek 22:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks for taking care of that. -- Ikan Kekek 22:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support QI --Sandro Halank 22:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 23:33, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Theodor_Josef_Hubert_Hoffbauer,_Quartier_du_Louvre,_1836.svg edit

 

  • Nomination Plan of the Louvre district in 1836 --Paris 16 08:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Too low resolution, sorry. --Tournasol7 09:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC) - It is a vector image. And 512px seems to be the maximum of SVG file in Commons. Resolution of the original file is bigger.--Paris 16 09:38, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support It is vector file. You can choose resolution as you like. --Mike1979 Russia 15:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per Mike1979. Looks good. -- Ikan Kekek 23:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 08:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Rekolan_ostoskeskus_in_Rekola,_Vantaa,_Finland,_2021_November.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Rekolan ostoskeskus (small shopping center) in Rekola, Vantaa --Ximonic 18:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. Poor framing and composition. No QI for me. --Milseburg 13:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. --King of Hearts 23:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp, and framing and composition are OK to me. -- Ikan Kekek 23:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Ikan -- Johann Jaritz 05:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Looks random to mee. Too much font cut up. --Milseburg 14:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 15:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

File:West_side_of_Vakulan_talo_in_Rekola,_Vantaa,_Finland,_2021_November.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Vakulan talo building in Rekola, Vantaa --Ximonic 18:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 23:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Poor framing and composition. No QI for me. --Milseburg 13:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I actually like the composition here, and the subtle lighting is quite nice. --King of Hearts 23:29, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality, nice and funny --Velvet 11:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Perfectly OK, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 23:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment The west facade is not completely covered. Why is the upper left corner missing? --Milseburg 14:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler (talk) 10:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Lisboa_June_2014-2.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Jardins da Água (Water Gardens) in the Parque das Nações, Lisboa, Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 11:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose This may be fine from the artistic point of view but doesn't fulfill the QI guidelines. If the water would be the subject it's too blurry, if the building in the back is the subject, it is mostly not visible behind the water --Poco a poco 18:53, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment The subject is the background seen from the running water -- Alvesgaspar 20:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I really like the idea and the concept of that image. But Poco a poco is right. If the main subject is the house in the background this should be more sharp and we must see much more of it. --Augustgeyler (talk) 09:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment And still, the image of this building is at least as sharp (if not more) than some of the pictures below, gladly on their way to promotion. "Deux poids, deux mesures"? -- Alvesgaspar 13:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I support. I liked the contrast between the static background and the dynamics in the foreground. In my opinion, fountain shots will always stand out from the usual row. Not everything can be written down in manuals, this case was not written. --Andrey Korzun 16:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support advanced subjekt, ok for me. --Milseburg 17:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support First of all, certainly a QI for me. However, I would have additionally tried two different setting variations. Once a version with aperture setting wider open and very short exposure time (1/2000s or shorter) to "freeze" the water. Focus then on the water. Or alternatively much longer exposure time (1/60s or even longer, you have to try) to bring out the "flow" more clearly. Then with the focus on the buildings. --Smial 11:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)
  •   Oppose Per Poco--Commonists 21:43, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Poco, perhaps you'd like to elaborate on which QI guidelines this photo doesn't fulfill, because I just reread them, and I'm not seeing it. I think this is a perfectly reasonable subject and well enough executed. -- Ikan Kekek 23:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
    That's what I did above, depending on what the subject here is: 1) unsharp or 2) poor composition because hidden behind elements in the foreground Poco a poco 13:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment I see. So we simply disagree. This is a view through running water, which I think is a perfectly OK subject, and I don't think it's essential for any part of the photo to be sharper. -- Ikan Kekek 14:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 08:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Bad_Dürkheim_Kirchgasse_14_003_2021_10_10.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Protestant deanery and parish hall of the palace church in Bad Dürkheim, view from east--F. Riedelio 08:05, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Perspective correction introduces extreme distortion in the building. See on-going discussion in QIC talk page. -- Alvesgaspar 16:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
    •   Comment   New version Thanks for the review. --F. Riedelio 08:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for me. --Ermell 23:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Milseburg 17:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 07:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I think that the correction of the perspective in this case is still within the acceptable range. With a classic adjustable view camera or a shift lens, this would also be photographable without electronic image processing. Good sharpness, natural looking colors, no excessive post sharpening, for me a QI. --Smial 11:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support--Commonists 21:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Seems acceptable and not extreme to me. -- Ikan Kekek 23:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 08:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Marktplatz_14_in_Creussen_(3).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Gemeindehaus at Marktplatz 14 in Creußen, Bavaria, Germany. --Tournasol7 06:53, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support A bit too dark but good quality. --Ermell 09:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree, washed out colours due to poor lighting conditions -- Alvesgaspar 10:56, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me. -- Johann Jaritz 05:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very poor lighting and distortion. --Augustgeyler 10:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Doesn't look weirdly distorted to me, lighting conditions were what they were, sharp photo. -- Ikan Kekek 14:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support I can't find any distortion. You can't choose the weather, but you can take good photos even in bad weather.--Steindy 19:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very poor lighting. One cannot chose the weather, ben one can chose the good day for a picture.--Jebulon 12:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry, sometimes we can't chose the good day for a picture. Whatever I like cloudy sky for take the photos. Tournasol7 06:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No you can't, but not every photo has the "right" to become a QI. It is perfectly reasonable that, when light is not good enough for a clear depiction of a subject, we wait patiently for a better occasion. Please understand that one of the most important goals of our QI galleries is to provide the best possible illustrations of the various subjects. Personal likings are not always compatible with that purpose. Please participate in the on-going discussion about the subject in the talk page of QIC. -- Alvesgaspar 12:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The best possible illustrations are the purposes of COM:VIC (if we're talking about the best thumbnails for use online) or COM:FPC. QIC is not about the best possible photos in any category but about photos of good quality. It seems like you want to redefine QIC to be an alternate form of FPC. -- Ikan Kekek 22:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with you in abstract, only our thresholds are very different! -- Alvesgaspar 00:23, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Our differences seem to be not only in degree but in kind. You appear to believe that it is not possible to shoot a good photo in overcast, dull light. -- Ikan Kekek 18:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Not exactly so although it is certainly much more difficult to take a good photo with an overcast sky. What I don't accept is that the requirements of a good photo automatically change in an inverse proportion with the difficulty of the shot. We know how such tendency can significantly lower the overall quality of the images, just because people are too lazy to wait for a better opportunity, to look for alternative approaches or to learn how to use the powerful tools of the digital lab. This is particularly annoying when experienced photographers are involved, thus passing the wrong message to the beginners. Also, I have taken good photos with an overcast sky and can't see why other people can't do the same. Sometimes, the difficult conditions even wake up the artist within ourselves and suggest creative solutions. But all of this require time, patience, a bit of humility and hard work. Present time's desire of immediate reward is detrimental to Photography. Finally, as I already said elsewhere, inclusiveness should apply to people, not to photos. -- Alvesgaspar 18:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I disagree about your final point, in that photos in dull light and photos of buildings with cars in front of them shouldn't be automatically rejected. As for the rest, I guess your standards for "good" are much higher than mine when the photo is in gray light. I'm not judging the difficulty of the photo, only the result as I see it. -- Ikan Kekek 08:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. --Fischer.H 10:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Per others. --Sebring12Hrs 22:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Poor light. --Kallerna 08:21, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Commonists 14:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my support --Augustgeyler (talk) 06:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Disagree @Commonists: Today morning, this discussion was 5 to 5. As this was nine days after starting it, I set the result to Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days. But you did not care. To overwrite this without any comment and adding further votes is no good behaviour. --Augustgeyler (talk) 17:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Agree The discussion was open....then?--Commonists 17:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • That's the point. By setting such a discussion to result correctly, it is not open any more… --Augustgeyler 18:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Rules are to be followed. Please put back the "inconclusive" outcome (I don't know how to do it) -- Alvesgaspar 22:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Augustgeyler don't you dare touch my vote! If you have a problem, ask an administrator, not anyone.Read the rules :"In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.". And if you really want to be precise then Kallena voted at 8.21am on the 19th so the 8 days would have expired at 6.53am (as the rules say, after 8 days, counted from its entry.).Either leave both or delete both. --Commonists 11:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry, I thought been asked to do so by Alvesgaspar. I must have accidentally changed the wrong vote. I am very sorry. Of course I would never do something like this intentionally --Augustgeyler 21:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC).
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 06:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)