Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 06 2023

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Bukit_Ekspo_(Kolam_3),_UPM_(230117-1339).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The rohu pond of Expo Hill, Universiti Putra Malaysia --Wee Hong 05:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment slight cw tilt. --Der Angemeldete 04:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Thanks for the advice. --Wee Hong 11:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Der Angemeldete 20:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC
  •  Weak oppose Sorry, to oppose here the promotion of Der Angemeldete. Nice composition. But this photo has a very borderline level of detail and colour depth (might be due to the camera). While this might not be an issue on macro photography or at near objects, it is too low for landscape. Additionally there are artefacts at the sky. --Augustgeyler 00:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I'm also sorry to oppose the promotion of Der Angemeldete, but in addition of the level of details, to my point of view the contrast is strong, the composition has nothing exceptional. This is a static scene where it should be easy to work out something better. --Cephas 22:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 00:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Hungarian_Parliament_Building_1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hungarian Parliament Building, Budapest. --Kallerna 13:17, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 18:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Bad crop left tower. --Jmh2o 18:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Technically well done. But the composition might be better without cropping the upper left part. --Augustgeyler 18:23, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the compo still works overall --DXR 21:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Cephas 22:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 00:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

File:Hebeloma. Locatie, Paddenstoelenreservaat. 31-10-2022. (actm.) 02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Unidentified fungi.
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 04:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 05:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but ID is insufficient. The genus should be identified at least. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality photo, but it would be good to ID it. Thanks. Mike Peel 19:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
     Comment The encyclopedic value of an image of an unidentified organism like this is close to zero. Therefore, I am astonished that you support it, while there is still no ID. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
    @Robert Flogaus-Faust: This is Commons, we're not an encyclopaedia? The image is otherwise correctly categorised, so can be discovered and reused for educational purposes even without the exact ID. Thanks. Mike Peel 17:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
    You are right, of course, that Commons is not an encyclopedia. But it is not just some file hoster for pretty photographs either. It is a media repository for educationally valuable media that are mainly intended for Wikipedia and related projects, see COM:EDUSE and the rules on Commons:Quality images candidates. Without an ID, an image of an organism might be still beautiful, but there is no realistic educational value. Anyway, as far as I understand the votes here, you don't need an exact ID, but generally just the genus. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
    @Robert Flogaus-Faust: We're not talking about pretty photos here, though - we're talking about image quality. What at Commons:Quality images candidates talks about identification? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:26, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No ID, no QI. Feel free to renominate it if you manage to ID it one day.--Peulle 16:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Peulle --Cephas 22:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I disagree with Mike Peel's comments. An unidentified flower photo should not be QI. Perhpas he can explain? Charlesjsharp 19:52, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
    • @Charlesjsharp: I can't see anything wrong with the photo - it's the right settings, a good composition, and the subject is sharp and clear. It's a quality image. The only thing missing is the ID, but I don't think that should affect giving it QI status. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 00:38, 6 April 2023 (UTC)