Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 25 2021

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Bonn,_Rheinaue,_Schwäne_--_2021_--_9117.jpg[edit]

File:Karl_Marx_street_House_4_(Gdov)_2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Karl Marx street House 4 (Gdov) --Reda Kerbouche 07:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose White areas on the right and left edges of the picture. also, the photo looks a bit noisy. --Hillopo2018 08:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC); the white areas are removed but for the rest I didn't agree.--Reda Kerbouche 13:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
     Support If there is noise, you'd expect to see it in the sky. I see none. Rodhullandemu 13:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support What white areas? Flowers? The right side of the house is not perfectly sharp, but I think it's good enough at a large enough size. And about the noise: In the road? If so, who cares? -- Ikan Kekek 08:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC) @Ikan Kekek: , the white areas at both sides. Look at the initial uploaded image that had been nominated!!! --Hillopo2018 08:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment OK, but since they're no longer there, you should cross that part of your remark out, if you're even eligible to vote. -- Ikan Kekek 18:35, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support A little bit blurred, but IMO ok. --Sebring12Hrs 15:57, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Monument_to_the_fallen_compatriots_in_Lyalitsy.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Monument to the fallen compatriots in Lyalitsy --Reda Kerbouche 07:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose the upper part of the image is not sharp and really overprecessed. --Hillopo2018 08:31, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
     Support Disagree, I see no difference between sharpness at the top and bottom of this iage. Rodhullandemu 14:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support It's a reflective surface, so it won't have the pinpoint sharp appearance a much less reflective surface could have. I find the sharpness adequate. -- Ikan Kekek 08:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Aerial_image_of_the_Aalen-Heidenheim-Elchingen_airfield.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Aerial image of the Aalen-Heidenheim/Elchingen airfield, Germany --Carsten Steger 19:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 00:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
    I disagree, a bit too unsharp. --Hillopo2018 08:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
     Support Perfectly fine for an aerial shot, in which distant haze is always present, and from a moving platform. 1/800 at f.14 is fine. Rodhullandemu 10:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
     Support This is aerial photography, good quality. --Knopik-som 10:46, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. Good photo. -- Ikan Kekek 08:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

File:SHTZ 15-30 in Gdov tractor Of Gdov.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination SKHTZ-NATI tractor Of Gdov, just next to the museum of History --Reda Kerbouche 18:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Main object in the shaddow, a bit noisy. --Hillopo2018 08:05, 20 July 2021 (UTC), sorry but I didn't agree.--Reda Kerbouche 12:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
     Support It would be nice to mention the town of that museum in the description, otherwise OK for QI. --Palauenc05 14:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. The city is in the file name and description. City Gdov, in Pskov Oblast. --Knopik-som 04:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Shadow is not a problem. Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 08:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:45, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

File:2017-05-27_Plac_Zamkowy_w_Warszawie_1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Castle Square in Warsaw --Maxim75 07:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose I find it too noisy. --Hillopo2018 09:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
     Oppose Bottom crop not well done because of the cut legs --Michielverbeek 05:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Surprisingly strong noise, also clearly visible CA, and a slight perspective correction would probably be needed as well. I don't understand the criticism of the cut legs thing. This is a street scene, there will always be some people cut off. --Smial 10:46, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Albert-Einstein-Straße_Infotafel_Hof_20210530_DSC00166.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Information board about a new department of the Hof university, Germany. --PantheraLeo1359531 08:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 17:56, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    Honestly, what deserves this temporarly placed wooden sign to be a quality image? The image design in general is unfortunately not convincing. In terms of craftsmanship, there is actually no really outstanding performance. --Hillopo2018 08:08, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
     Support This is not an FP nomination. Technical quality is fine, composition is fine. Rodhullandemu 10:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. And Hillopo2018, photography is not only an art but also a form of documentation, and all aspects of the universe merit documentation. -- Ikan Kekek 09:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, we don't know what kind of value this might have in the future, so QIC is only about judging the photographic quality.--Peulle 14:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

File:001_2016_06_11_Rahmung.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Look through to Langeneß, framed by the Föhr sculpture with the outline of the halligen from the south beach of Wyk auf Föhr
    --F. Riedelio 12:00, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The structure is unsharp. It might have been the purpose to 'see through' the sculpture, but the panorama is not much eye-catching, the colored chairs get the attention. Perhaps it would be useful to take this photo to the discussion. --Nefronus 17:09, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsharp --Hillopo2018 08:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

File:End-to-end_optimized_image_compression_with_competition_of_prior_distributions_(poster).pdf[edit]

  • Nomination "End-to-end optimized image compression with competition of prior distributions" poster as shown at P.A.I.S.S. 2021. --Trougnouf 09:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
    Can typeset documents in pdf be nominated? --Nefronus 20:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
    I don't know but I assume yes. PDF is a vector format that is most appropriate for content containing lots of text and mixed media, and vector / vector-based images qualify for QI (given they are made with free software or have high resolution, both apply, it was created in LibreOffice Draw). --Trougnouf 09:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
     Oppose this is an pdf, not a photograph. Nothing special with this pdf file. Oppose. --Hillopo2018 08:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  •  Question How should we evaluate this? In terms of how the layout looks? The images in it? Its comprehensibility? I feel like this is a brochure that includes images, not really an image, and that it would have to be evaluated in a different way from an image. -- Ikan Kekek 09:20, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Bonn,_Rheinaue,_Graugänse_--_2021_--_9153.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Greylag geese in the Rheinaue Park in Bonn, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:52, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 05:34, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
     Oppose Sorry, but only the goose at the center is completely sharp. The exposition is adequate to the lighting conditions, yet the DoF is imo too low and there is some motion blur. Let’s discuss. --Nefronus 11:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    •  Comment The depth of field has obviously been deliberately chosen by the photographer, and so is fine by me. Withhold vote because I don't know if the thing with the slightly overexposed white feathers can be fixed. --Smial 10:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
      • I tried to fix the white feathers - a little bit. I don't know if it's really good, but unfortunately more was not possible at this point. --XRay 04:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
  • weak  Support When 11 gooses are in motion, it's difficult, to get them all sharp. All in one goood quality. --Steindy 12:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)