Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 27 2021

Consensual review edit

File:Doncella_(Coris_julis),_Parque_natural_de_la_Arrábida,_Portugal,_2020-07-21,_DD_50.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Mediterranean rainbow wrasse (Coris julis), Arrábida Natural Park, Portugal --Poco a poco 12:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality.--Horst J. Meuter 12:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree, noisy & unshapt. -- Alvesgaspar 06:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I have to agree with Alvesgaspar this time. -- Ikan Kekek 07:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I must agree; the artefacts are significant.--Peulle 08:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 14:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Mount_Vesuvius_with_fog_and_sea_1.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Mount Vesuvius with fog and sea.jpg --Commonists 11:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Comment This looks the same as the photo you already nominated. Why don't you fix the problems with it? -- Ikan Kekek 13:52, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I tried but you didn't answer me. Thank you.--Commonists 20:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, it doesn't look fixed to me. -- Ikan Kekek 08:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Ok but why are you writing to me here and not in the Nomination where I wrote to you? Thanks--Commonists 08:37, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • What was it you expected me to do? I had voted for your photo in CR; what you did was to revert to the original version of the photo, which has the problems mentioned by me and other users, and while it is still under consideration, you renominate it to do what? Get my attention? You could have posted to my user talk page and pinged me, but for what purpose, anyway? I will   Oppose this irregular and IMO pointless renomination. -- Ikan Kekek 16:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Honestly Ikan Kekek, I haven't asked you for anything,and I'm certainly not interested in getting your attention either. It's another photo not the same one. I don't understand why you're so upset about something of little interest. Greetings. --Commonists 20:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Done I have reworked it, maybe we can hear what others think? Thank you. --Commonists 22:44, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Question Who said I was upset? I just think that if you are not having success with a photo because of artifacts, it's kind of pointless to nominate another photo that is almost identical and has same issues. And my question is, since you edited the photo to radically change the colors, which version is more accurate? -- Ikan Kekek 02:18, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I think this one but if I put it up it's to get other opinions. Then I don't see where the problem is. Greetings.--Commonists 20:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This image has the same problem with artefacts as the other one.--Peulle 08:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 14:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Maybach_X222_IAA_2021_1X7A0096.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Mercedes-Maybach X222 at IAA Mobility 2021.--Alexander-93 09:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Velvet 07:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry. But the image is not sharp. --Augustgeyler 11:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose disturbing background & reflections. --Kallerna 17:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I tend to be pretty tolerant about these things, but I have to agree with Kallerna. -- Ikan Kekek 06:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 14:16, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Guindastre_en_Bläse.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Guindastre en Bläse, Gotland.Eu, como posuidor dos dereitos de autor desta obra, pola presente publícoa baixo a seguinte licenza: --Beninho 11:15, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Unfavorable exposure (lost details in shadow areas). --F. Riedelio 08:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Not done within one week. --F. Riedelio 07:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough for QI. --Palauenc05 21:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Weak support More detail in the dark parts would be nice, but I think, it's still acceptable as it is. --Smial 11:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support OK. -- Ikan Kekek 07:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The loss of detail in the dark parts eliminated most structural info about how the crane arm is constructed. Additionally the image has no proper description. --Augustgeyler 10:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't care if the image is chosen or not, my life don't depend on it, but sometimes people get too demanding with small details, while other times you can see horrible "quality pictures". It's true, the dark sides perhaps has not enough detail for an engineer, and yes, as a person with little knowledge of engineering, for me a good description is "a crane in [write the place here]". I'm sorry, but I sincerely think that some rules must change here, there are too arbitrary decisions and a lot of pictures of doubtful quality that go through, and in the end this seems like a contest of who has more "beautiful images". --Beninho 12:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment IMHO is the goal and purpose of QI reviews to make better pictures. Lost details in shadow areas has nothing to do with engineering. It does not comply with the guidelines, Issue Exposure. If you want to improve the QI nomination rules, feel free to add your criticisms, requests and suggestions for improvement to the discussion here. --F. Riedelio 15:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • It is a good thing to be able to describe the main objects of an image as precise as possible. Additionally structured data can / should be added. This way, we can make the commons database more useful for other. By caring for this, we can avoid exactly what you think this might have already become here – a contest of most "beautiful images". --Augustgeyler (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 14:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Česká_Kamenice.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Česká Kamenice train station, Czech Republic --Cmelak770 07:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Sorry! Too many CAs. --Steindy 15:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support CAs are barely visible for me. In any case,   chromatic aberration should never be an immediate decline; if correction is necessary you can comment and leave it in blue status. Personally I think correction would make it better but isn't strictly required. --King of Hearts 16:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Question Where are the CAs? I think I see some places where they're barely detectable at full size on my 23.5-inch monitor, but Steindy, would you like to clarify? Looks like good quality to me, but I'm open to having a second look. -- Ikan Kekek 05:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment The only CA I see is on the left roof. --Augustgeyler 06:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support The typical CA of the red-green type is present, but quite low. Not visible at normal viewing distance, you have to get very close. Good enough as QI. --Smial 09:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support per Smial --Sandro Halank 22:09, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support --Commonists 20:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 07:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 14:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Tiburón_azul_(Prionace_glauca),_canal_Fayal-Pico,_islas_Azores,_Portugal,_2020-07-27,_DD_32.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Blue shark (Prionace glauca), Faial-Pico Channel, Azores Islands, Portugal. --Poco a poco 13:43, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Steindy 19:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unsharp, noisy and undetailed -- Alvesgaspar 22:13, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality for underwater. --Tagooty 03:54, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Taking into account the photographic conditions, the picture is okay. --XRay 06:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose As we usually expect the eye of animals in focus, this is – in my eyes – not QI. --Augustgeyler 10:53, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose underwater photography is really not that challenging. If the water is turbid, wait for another day. --Kallerna 16:32, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support This one gives a good overall impression, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 07:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 00:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Floridsdorfer_AC_2016–17_–_Mario_Kröpfl_(03).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Mario Kröpfl, footballplayer of Floridsdorfer AC. --Steindy 00:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Commonists 20:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I like Steindys series from that football game. But sadly this particular candidate shows too much motion blur, especially on the players face and eyes. --Augustgeyler 23:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Palauenc05 09:23, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Seems of good quality as a shot of a running player. -- Ikan Kekek 07:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 14:22, 26 November 2021 (UTC)