Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 01 2023

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Lendevallei._Natuurgebied_van_It_Fryske_Gea._29-05-2023._(d.j.b)_05.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Stream valley landscape of the Lende valley. Swamp vegetation and biotope.
    --Famberhorst 04:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 05:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry areas and oversharpening unfortunately. --Tomer T 13:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry: Motion blur, level of detail  Level of detail too low too low for QI . --F. Riedelio 09:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Note: it is a Long exposure photo (4 sec.). Then you deliberately create blur in the planting. But not everyone likes that.--Famberhorst 15:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Neutral an interesting attempt to use long exposure in landscape photography. However, I find that the exposure time was actually still too short, so that the probably desired blur effect has not become clear enough and actually looks more like camera shake. This could be a great picture if you could catch a moment when, for example, the water surface is very quiet, so the water lilies(?) would be in focus and sharp, while the vegetation around them would be in motion. --Smial 15:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Hotel_de_Rolland_in_Carcassonne_(3).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hôtel de Rolland in Carcassonne, Aude, France. --Tournasol7 06:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tagooty 11:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The technical quality is good, indeed, but the photographing angle is too acute for me (I assume that the street is quite narrow, where frontal images would not cover the whole facade), sorry --PantheraLeo1359531 12:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good to me. --Sebring12Hrs 13:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good to me, too. -- Ikan Kekek 05:00, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom 05:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Seal_of_the_Defense_Contract_Management_Agency.svg

[edit]

  • Nomination SVG seal of a U.S. Department of Defense agency -- 02:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose OC(the real author) is not commons wikimedia user. of course it is looking good, but it is what it is. --Modern primat 10:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
    •  Info I may not have DESIGNED the seal, but I certainly spent 1 hour vectorizing it. Just like how I do not have to be a building's architect to submit photos of the building here. -- 13:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Well executed and vectorized by a Wikimedian. --MB-one 14:11, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support by MB-one. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:09, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support per MB-one --LexKurochkin 09:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Question What are the Commons guidelines in these kinds of situations? -- Ikan Kekek 06:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
    • @Ikan Kekek: AFAIK there is no specific guideline ATM, but photographic reproduction of 2D artwork by Commons users is eligible. So I don't see why this type of reproduction shouldn't be. --MB-one 10:51, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I think there should be a discussion about the guidelines for these kinds of images somewhere. -- Ikan Kekek 05:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom 05:43, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Seagulls_at_Downsview_Park_07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Ring Billed Gulls --Fabian Roudra Baroi 02:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 02:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Head of sea gull is hidden. Given the number of sea gull images in Commons, most of which are collecting digital dust, QC images must well-illustrate the species or an aspect of species behavior to have value for Wikimedia Commons and other projects. --GRDN711 14:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
  • This is about technical quality not Commons:Valued images, regardless of the commonness of the subject, and all aspects of a bird are relevant for different purposes. I am  Neutral about the quality of this bird; it's sharp but since it's not a headshot I would have preferred for the whole body to be sharp (smaller aperture). --Trougnouf (talk) 13:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
 Comment This is consideration of image value in QI evaluations. Per COM:QIC guidelines on Value - “Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.” Photographers need to bring their images of best quality at all levels for QI consideration. Just another seagull image, even if it is technically acceptable, is not enough. There must be a belief that this image is publishable in Wikimedia projects or outside use. Sorry, but I don't see that in this image. --GRDN711 23:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose composition. Charlesjsharp 15:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Charlesjsharp. If cropped to a meaningful view, the resolution and sharpness become too low and the result is no more usable for an acceptable A4 size print. No problem with the hidden head, there may be someone outside or inside wikimedia projekts, who needs such a view in good quality. --Smial 11:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --BigDom 05:42, 30 June 2023 (UTC)