Jump to content

Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 12 2025

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Типовой_кинотеатр_Максим_03.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A typical Soviet cinema, modern times --Lvova 09:34, 30 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Should be sufficiently categorized --A.Savin 12:40, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
    Added the 2nd category, if you wish. --Lvova 15:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 08:07, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
    God bless ChatGPT who can help to understand. Ok, the new version is uploaded. --Lvova 22:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
  • {{s}} good now. --Harlock81 07:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
    The tilt is still visible even at normal size. --Sebring12Hrs 07:19, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
    You are right. This morning I compared the two pictures, but I paid attention mostly to the right-hand side. The left corner of the building is still tilted, even though less than before. --Harlock81 09:52, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 11:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Medina_entrance_at_Bab_Agnaou_Gate,_Marrakesh,_Morocco,_20250125_1254_7239.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Medina entrance at Bab Agnaou Gate, Marrakesh, Morocco --Jakubhal 04:03, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:29, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the top part of arch is not sharp enough . In addition, the picture looks very strange when the verticals are completely straight, but the upper part of the arch is tilted to the right. --Екатерина Борисова 02:46, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Of course, this photo can be criticized, too. But I think it's sharp enough. You can even see the cat's whiskers. Apart from that, I wouldn't try to change the perspective, which is from left to right. -- Spurzem 09:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Support Good picture. Perspective is ok as it is. The upper part of the arch is out of focus, but it's hard to have that sharp from a short distance, but the short distance was necessary for the composition. --Plozessor 03:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Sebring12Hrs 04:02, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Dirk_Zedler,_Cycling_World_Europe_2025,_Meerbusch_(File1028-2).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dirk Zedler at Cycling World Europe 2025 --MB-one 08:27, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The post sharpening of the eyes did not work very well.Sorry. --Ermell 19:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done uploaded a new version with better denoising. Thanks for the review --MB-one 20:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
  • Too blurry now. Sorry. --Ermell 20:25, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. --Plozessor 05:58, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. --Sebring12Hrs 08:05, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Focus not on the face, destructive noise reduction. --Smial 12:24, 8 April 2025 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Sebring12Hrs 11:10, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Male_blackbird_(Turdus_merula),_Calouste_Gulbenkian_Garden,_Lisbon,_Portugal_julesvernex2.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Male blackbird (Turdus merula), Calouste Gulbenkian Garden, Lisbon, Portugal (by Julesvernex2) --Sebring12Hrs 19:18, 27 March 2025 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Generally good. But I would suggest a tighter crop. --MB-one 10:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
     Comment Thank you for the feedback. I understand that many prefer tighter crops. I personally prefer to include more leading space in the direction the subject is facing. -- Julesvernex2 14:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I understand your intentions. For me that's a dealbreaker regarding QI. However, you can ask for CR, if you want. --MB-one 07:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment @MB-one: can you point me to the QI guidelines that disavow the current crop? Here, under the 'Composition' section, the Rule of Thirds (which was used for this image) is actually suggested and tight crops are discouraged. I suggest you base your review on the current QI rules, rather than on what you personally consider to be dealbreakers. -- Julesvernex2 09:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment QI guidelines require a "balanced" composition. The ratio of subject against fore- and background area seems unbalanced to me. It's not an objective criterion, so the reviewer's discretion is advised here. However, if you prefer me to abstain from reviewing your nominations in the future, that's ok. Just let me know. --MB-one 19:52, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don’t think you should refrain from reviewing images, mine or anyone else’s, because that’s how we all learn. I do think however that you should keep an open mind for photos that don’t fit your personal aesthetics but nevertheless meet the QI guidelines. Take composition guidelines, for instance: these are not broad because we expect reviewers to apply their own subjective discretion on top, but because there are many valid approaches to composition. — Julesvernex2 (talk) 06:01, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
 Support The crop is fine in my opinion. It is good if there is still some space in the line of vision. The cropping, which is too tight, reminds me more of a Wikipedia style, but not of a good composition. --XRay 11:48, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
 Support I agree with XRAY and Julesvernex2. Apart from that, a beautiful picture that should receive its QI award.--St. Krug 22:14, 7 April 2025 (UTC)
 Support The quality of the image is sufficient also according to me. --Harlock81 07:07, 9 April 2025 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Sebring12Hrs 11:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)