Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 05 2023

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Dubrovnik_2016-05-26_DSC06252_view_from_the_wall.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Dubrovnik 2016-05 view from the wall. (By Ponor) --Sebring12Hrs 22:27, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    Tilted in ccw direction --Poco a poco 01:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Not done after 6 days. --多多123 17:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. I see a very good image with a very minimal lack mentioned. We should not overdo. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 07:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Obvious tilt. Look at the horizon. Fixing this very easy and I require it before promotion to QI status.--Peulle 06:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Per Peulle --Jakubhal 18:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Hallo Peulle and Jakubhal, it is always amazing how many badly designed photos are hailed as quality images and how many very good photos are devalued and declared unusable. Although I am often tempted to present one or the other picture again, I will not do it in view of the often unobjective evaluation. Best regards -- Spurzem 20:01, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Dear Spurzem, I have exactly the same feeling, just sometimes a different view of what is a quality image. Though the case is simple here, the image could be a QI after a straightforward technical fix. Maybe you could fix the image or contact the author instead of making a rant about it. --Jakubhal 04:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
  • @Spurzem: I find your comment insulting and passive-aggressive. My review above is entirely objective, using the criteria set forth in the Guidelines (see section: "Distortions"). If this image were still up for normal review, I would make a comment rather than vote on it, but as it is now in CR, I will vote to oppose its promotion in its current form - as is customary here.--Peulle 06:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
@Ponor: can you upload the new photo version? -- Jakubhal 05:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
@Jakubhal: Is it good now? Please look the new version. -- Spurzem 14:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
@Spurzem: it was not. You made the tilt in the opposite direction. I have uploaded another fix from the original. Now, for me is ok, but as I made the correction, I refraign from voting. --Jakubhal 15:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now. -- Ikan Kekek 18:13, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Jakubhal. --多多123 10:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, it's OK now.--Peulle 12:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 06:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

File:War_memorial_for_World_war_I+II_near_Moosbrunn,_Lower_Austria,_Austria-figure_front_PNr°0936.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: A memorial for fallen soliders of the first and second world war east of Moosbrunn, Lower Austria, Austria --D-Kuru 07:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Low level of details, and it seems the background is shaked. --Sebring12Hrs 16:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Same with the low details per above. How can the backround look shaked while the rest of the image does not. Just keep in mind that the aperture is 2.8 --D-Kuru 05:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support The pedestal is too close for the depth of field, so it's not very sharp, but the rest of the sculpture is. Maybe I'm missing something, but this photo seems OK to me. -- Ikan Kekek 19:33, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support DoF is very limited indeed, but the satue itself is focus. Hint, if I may: Why not opening the aperture for a stationary object in good light condition? --Virtual-Pano 19:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficient DoF -- the waist is ok, top and bottom of the statue are blurry. Statue is underexposed --Tagooty 15:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 10:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)