Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 13 2023

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Interior_of_Stiftskirche_St._Peter_(Bad_Waldsee)_33.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Interior of Stiftskirche St. Peter (Bad Waldsee) - cross on a side altar --Kritzolina 21:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality. --Tagooty 01:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose Poorly categorized (only 1 category, not specific at all), low level of detail --Basile Morin 03:02, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
     Comment I added one cat for the cross itself, but it is not so easy to find fitting ones. This is a cross on an altar, but it is not an altar cross. And as far as I am aware of, there is no category for this specific shape of cross. If you know one, I would be happy to learn. --Kritzolina 09:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
  • Learn, yes. Categorizing an image is very easy. You just need a bit of method. See COM:C. With a picture like this, a dozen of consistent categories are available. You see it's a cross? So you type Category:crosses to display immediately a vast amount of relevant subcategories. You see it's a golden object? So you type Category:Golden objects to navigate into the menu and find the right cat. You notice it's a small object with a huge background? → Type Category:Backgrounds to sort your image in the appropriate boxes, etc. Wikimedia Commons is an image repository. Properly categorizing a QI candidate is part of COM:I. Here we prioritize quality over quantity. By the way, it would also be good to read the rules of participation. Commons:QIC#Guidelines: "If possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates." This operating rule is based on reciprocity. At this stage, you have nominated 28 questionable nominations (only one is green), and reviewed zero -- Basile Morin 11:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
So you also don't know a more specific category than those I added. Thanks for confirming. As for my nominations, I think you actually DO know that non reviewed entries stay longer than those that got a review, right? I am happy with the percentage of my nominations that get promoted, so perhaps you should not concern yourself with that issue. And yes, I regualrily check entries that did not get reviews to see if I can give a useful review and then add my review, even if I don't have any nominations running. This is how the "if possible" sentence works. --Kritzolina 13:47, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
You are calling this a specific category? Sorry, not sorry, but feel free to add it, if you thing it is useful. --Kritzolina 15:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment. The shadows are distracting and it seems as if the image has a yellow cast, no QI for me. -- Spurzem 11:09, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose No issue with the categorization; what disqualifies this picture as a QI in my opinion is simply the lack of sharpness. --Plozessor 16:04, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've seen paintings like this several times, on wood, but also on walls that were perhaps once blue on white but have yellowed with age. If I take the image resolution into account, the photo is sharp enough for an A4 print. If there is a reasonable explanation for the colour cast or if it is corrected, I would give it a "pro". --Smial 23:55, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ploz. --Palauenc05 17:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 08:02, 12 December 2023 (UTC)