Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 26 2023

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Friedhof_Melaten_-_Köln_-_Familiengrab_Millowitsch.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Grave of the german Entertainer Millowitsch in Cologne --Grunpfnul 18:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Front part not sharp enough because of low f-value --Michielverbeek 20:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
    Lets discuss --Grunpfnul 05:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Michielverbeek. --Smial 07:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. I can't read the writing on the grave lights either, but I think that the photo is sharp enough overall. The picture looks good to me. -- Spurzem 10:56, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
@Peulle: How could the decision be made so quickly? Sometimes it takes weeks before we come to a final assessment. -- Spurzem 13:32, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:02, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Luxembourg_(LU),_Grund_und_Église_Saint-Jean_--_2023_--_8132.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View of Grund district and Église Saint-Jean in Luxembourg City, Luxembourg --XRay 04:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality.--Tournasol7 04:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Slightly blurred/out of focus. --Tagooty 04:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Sharpness improved. I'm not sure, may be it's good enough. --XRay 04:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks OK to me. Not tack sharp, but it was a gray day. Nice view and nice sky. -- Ikan Kekek 05:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Both versions. Photos with very soft lighting often tend to look blurrier than those taken in harsh, direct sunlight, which therefore have higher local contrasts. --Smial 07:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Could be sharper, but good enough --Jakubhal 15:25, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support. Not the best composition but good quality -- Spurzem 17:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 10:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Waregem,_de_Sint-Amandus-en-Blasius_Kerk_IMG_6670_2023-06-06_13.03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Waregem in Belgium, church: the Sint-Amandus-en-Blasius Kerk --Michielverbeek 05:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality. --Ercé 06:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Underexposed and the top of the church is unsharp. --Ermell 08:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ermell, especially because of the underexposure, which is drastic to me. -- Ikan Kekek 05:42, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment The exposure as such is not so wrong, because some highlights are already (unavoidably) somewhat overexposed. If you would just expose the image brighter in general, some bright details would be destroyed. I would try to raise the mid-tones a bit via s-curving. The overall image sharpness is not that great, but thanks to the image resolution it is quite sufficient for an A4 print. Would support if the midtones could be enhanced. --Smial 08:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 10:49, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Extremely unterexposed. A pity. -- Spurzem 17:00, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 10:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Paris_8e_-_Grand_Palais_-_L'Immortalité_devançant_le_Temps_(Georges_Récipon).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Immortality Outstripping Time by Georges Récipon --Romainbehar 17:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion

 Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 17:51, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 Comment Good picture, but a poor file description. At least, the place should be mentioned. Geocoding would be fine, too. --Palauenc05 07:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose For now, because there is no reaction to my comment. --Palauenc05 07:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Oppose vote scratched because of new file description. --Palauenc05 12:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good quality, and the place is stated in the filename: Grand Palais, 8ieme arrondissement, Paris. -- Ikan Kekek 05:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 Comment It is very good that the filename is kept so detailed, but unfortunately files on commons are often arbitrarily renamed and moved because someone likes it better. A good image description also facilitates possible translations into other languages and the use of Wikidata. --Smial 08:11, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 Comment Indeed, anything else would have surprised me. Image page requirement 3 says a QI should "... have an accurate description on the file page." Is a problem to follow this rule? Instead ignore my hint? I would have scratched my oppose vote, if that little correction had been done. --Palauenc05 11:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand why someone would arbitrarily change a filename that contained the place name, but I added the place name to both file descriptions. If it's not specific enough, please edit it. -- Ikan Kekek 00:17, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 Comment I also don't understand why anyone would do that, but the stupid thing is: it's done and it happens every now and then. File names are not protected from any craziness here on commons. --Smial 07:22, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. The category mentions the place of the sculpture. --Sebring12Hrs 15:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 10:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Paris_8e_-_Grand_Palais_-_L'Harmonie_triomphant_de_la_Discorde_(Georges_Récipon).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Harmony Triumphing over Discord by Georges Récipon --Romainbehar 17:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 17:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
     Comment Good picture, but a poor file description. At least, the place should be mentioned. Geocoding would be fine, too. --Palauenc05 07:46, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose For now, because there is no reaction to my comment. --Palauenc05 07:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose vote scratched because of new file description. --Palauenc05 12:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good quality, and the place is named in the filename. -- Ikan Kekek 05:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 Comment Indeed, anything else would have surprised me. Image page requirement 3 says a QI should "... have an accurate description on the file page." Is a problem to follow this rule? Instead ignore my hint? I would have scratched my oppose vote, if that little correction had been done. --Palauenc05 11:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good and good post-compression. --Sebring12Hrs 15:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 10:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Jemeppe_sur_Sambre,_produktiebedrijf_INOVYN_Manufacturing_IMG_6322_2023-06-02_14.26.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Jemeppe sur Sambre in Belgium, manufacturing company INOVYN Manufacturing --Michielverbeek 06:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose blurry at the sides --Grunpfnul 19:25, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
    I did the highest possible f-value. A crop at the left and the right is an option. --Michielverbeek 20:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 10:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Church_of_the_Theotokos_of_Smolensk_Bogoyavlensky_Monastery_Uglich_2023-07-22_7443.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Church of the Theotokos of Smolensk in Bogoyavlensky Monastery in Uglich --Mike1979 Russia 06:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Right part is leaning to the right --Michielverbeek 07:16, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Info The porch of the church is not vertical. See the living house on the right. --Mike1979 Russia 08:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me, but it needs to be discussed. --Sebring12Hrs 10:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support If that's the way it looks, that's fine. -- Ikan Kekek 05:46, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 10:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Bâtiment_à_Šibenik_1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bâtiment à Šibenik. --Sebring12Hrs 08:54, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Unfavorable recording time. The shadow bothers a lot. -- Spurzem 09:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Info The street is very thight and the house is tall. I think there are shadows at every hour in a day. --Sebring12Hrs 10:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality to me. -- Ikan Kekek 05:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me --Jakubhal 15:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 10:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Bâtiment_à_Šibenik.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Bâtiment à Šibenik. --Sebring12Hrs 08:49, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Disturbing shadow. -- Spurzem 09:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment The balcony shades at every hour. --Sebring12Hrs 10:56, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the shadow cast gives the facade structure and life. And it is not so strong that nothing would be visible in the dark areas. I like that. Also, the image is sharp and the perspective is just natural in such narrow streets. --Smial 17:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support OK to me. -- Ikan Kekek 05:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me also --Jakubhal 15:26, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 10:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Audi_80_B1_Classic-Days_2022_DSC_0239.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Audi 80 B1 at Classic-Days Düsseldorf 2022.--Alexander-93 15:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline Left side too dark -- Spurzem 15:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable to me at full size. It needs to be discussed. --Sebring12Hrs 16:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As I said above. I think the lack could be improved. -- Spurzem 12:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Left side is shadowed but IMO not too dark --Michielverbeek 19:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Spurzem that mid-tones left side could be increased to permit better rendition and focus on car model. --GRDN711 15:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm not sure about the shadow, but I don't like the bisected people in the background. -- Ikan Kekek 05:50, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 10:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

File:MSI_Bravo_17_(0017FK-007)-USB-C_port_large_PNr°0761.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The USB-C port of a MSI Bravo 17 laptop --D-Kuru 06:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 08:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose DoF --Аныл Озташ 12:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak  Oppose The photo is quite interesting for comparison with the excellent focus stacked version of the same subject. Standing alone, however, the depth of field is indeed insufficient, or the focus is wrong. --Smial 10:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 Comment This image was taken with a very specialised macro lens that has a very tiny DOF. So what you see is pretty much what you get when you don't use any additional software (which was kinda the point with this image). To give you an better idea for this: Depending on the setup, putting down your leg on the parquet floor next to the tripod can move the object out of focus (If you watch through the viewfinder while doing so you can actually see it happen). An aperture of 32 does not help anything. BTW: Please ping me or I will miss images like this one! --D-Kuru (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 Comment The MP-E is a nice lens, but should be subject to the same optical laws as any other. I would have put the main focus on the innards of the socket, because that is what is interesting about USB-C. You would still recognize that there is a metal frame, even if it is not perfectly sharp. --Smial 08:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose You worked with what you had, but that blur is not satisfying to me as a viewer. -- Ikan Kekek 05:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 10:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Graceland_Cemetery,_Chicago_(2023)_-_12.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Graceland Cemetery, Chicago --Another Believer 03:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 03:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Too low level of details --Jakubhal 05:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
     Support Good to me. --Sebring12Hrs 06:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Weak  Oppose Basically, the image is good enough to be printed in A4 size. But it has a bit too much of everything: a bit too much colour saturation, a bit too high contrast, a bit too much noise reduction, a bit too much post-sharpening and it seems a bit crooked to me. Isn't there a default setting of "natural colours" instead of "vivid" on the iphone?--Smial 11:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 05:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose +1. --Peulle 11:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 10:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

File:Graceland_Cemetery,_Chicago_(2023)_-_46.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Graceland Cemetery, Chicago --Another Believer 03:26, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose  Level of detail too low --Jakubhal 05:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
    Week  Support for me. Sharpness could be better, but I see a good composition and good colors. -- Spurzem 16:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
     Support Per Spurzem. --Sebring12Hrs 06:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jakubhal. Not close to a quality image to me - unsharp, oversharpened, as typical of cellphone pics that don't look good at full size (some do). -- Ikan Kekek 05:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Jakubhal.--Peulle 11:14, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 10:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

File:En_Ooru_Village_-_Reed_Cutter_-_1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Reed Cutter in En Ooru Tribal Village / Wayanad, Kerala --Imehling 12:12, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose There seems to be some motion blur (look at the hair) --FlocciNivis 08:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Info I think this isn't so bad? --Imehling 18:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Not 100% sharp at pixel level, but easily sufficient for a4-size printout or even more because of the high image resolution. --Smial 12:55, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Thanks. Mike Peel 16:05, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 10:17, 25 August 2023 (UTC)