Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 27 2023

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Consensual review[edit]

File:D-6-74-171-14_Mühle.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Former mill in Maroldsweisach --Plozessor 04:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion A difficult composition to make a QI. IMO the not-shadowed part is too brighten and the shadowed part might have been a bit darker --Michielverbeek 06:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
     Support IMO ok. Let's see what others think. --Sebring12Hrs 09:31, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose I don't have problem with the shadowed part for QI, but with the traffic barrier (?) in the foreground. --ArildV 16:22, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
 Comment Image guidelines say "Foreground ... objects should not be distracting. Objects in front of the subject shouldn't hide important elements." Obviously that guardrail doesn't "hide important elements" as the building is completely visible. Personally I also would not consider it "distracting", but you might object. Unfortunately I can't remove it without over-cropping the picture. --Plozessor 17:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Maybe a combination of the railing and the camera position, but I understand that the picture is taken from a car and that there is no sidewalk? Otherwise it would have been possible to get a slightly better angle. That said, maybe I was being overly critical. Regards--ArildV (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Somewhat overexposed: clipping on sunlit facade. --Smial 00:04, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 Comment Where exactly? --Plozessor 04:10, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
In my opinion, all window frames, parts of the plaster and parts of the roofing are clipping. --Smial 16:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
There's definitely no clipping in the roof, as can be seen when zooming it in an editor and making it darker. Anyway, unfortunately I've lost the raw files from this shot, but I made the bright parts a bit darker and the dark parts a bit lighter now. --Plozessor 17:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks OK to me. -- Ikan Kekek 19:11, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 06:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Genesis_Electrified_G80_1X7A5744.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Genesis Electrified G80 in Böblingen.--Alexander-93 16:31, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline No good lighting on the roof and on the rear -- Spurzem 18:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --MB-one 15:46, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. I ask to discuss. In my opinion it is no QI. -- Spurzem 21:15, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Looking good enough for me. --Plozessor (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
@Plozessor: The question here is not whether it is "good enough", but whether it is a quality image that could possibly be published in a book or magazine. Best regards -- Spurzem 21:53, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much reflected light to me, but do you really think the standard is that all QIs could be published in a book or magazine? Maybe we should discuss somewhere whether that's a criterion that should be added to the QI criteria. -- Ikan Kekek 04:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
  • About 20% of promoted QIs would be good enough for a magazine or book! The QI hurdle is set very low, particularly on composition. Charlesjsharp 10:07, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. Lost detail and colour channel clipping in the reflections. --Smial 11:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 06:36, 26 October 2023 (UTC)