Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 23 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Hamburger-kunsthalle-alter-treppenaufgang.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Alter Treppenaufgang in der Hamburger Kunsthalle. By User:Daniela Kloth --Ralf Roletschek 15:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Good quality, PumpkinSky 15:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose less than 2MP - so not eligible for QI --Granada 17:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Correct, too small. PumpkinSky 17:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support PRO! or Stoppen. Old Cam means old Chip. We are talking here about technical arguments from marketing or the slice of life? It´s more than Q1, ok the lights (exactly in the most important point a really a pity (Imho)) --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 18:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Moving this to CR is absolutely useless. The guidelines are clear: less than 2 MP, no QI. --Basotxerri 21:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Under 2MP, no QI. The "old cam" argument is moot; we are judging by the technology of present day, not what was considered good many years ago.--Peulle 16:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. 2 MP is a hard lower limit, period. -- Ikan Kekek 07:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  CommentThe EOS 400D has 10 Megapixels. --Ailura 09:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment The image has been downsampled and even at its now low resolution it incorporates visible CAs and lacks sharpness in details. But I am very sure it could be improved to Q1 if one took the original (RAW?) file and reworked it with a current version of PS, LR, C1 or whatever you like. --Granada 09:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ikan. If you want to change the 2MP rule, please discuss it at the QI talk page. --cart-Talk 10:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I´m really shocked and chopped! We are here at the Sony Marketing Gadget? It´s small, its not the best, but issue from reviewers are not the picmaker view, only blending reso...WTF no word about Lights.... (Will not read ANY comment about overexposed sky on my pics)--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 22:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I like the composition and the lighting, but hard limit is hard limit, sorry. Why are you criticizing reviewers who refer to clearly defined rules? --Smial 23:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment :: @Basotxerri & Smial: My Critic about Reviewers are Not about Rules, more don´t talking about main issues. Ralf can develope it new (See comment from Granada), but clockwise when some size rules are used hardly, then the community have to kill the "child monk" (for some days ago) again. And this was a only-jpeg-image from a old box-cam. Only with a additional layer (no upscaling) over 2MP - At puplishing front, size is a matter and it´s clearly more difficult to get good results under 500KB or thumb-size. Most common professional pics are flashed, reduced as raster pic and upright. Here we are in a a whole nother world and still not Pro or for Fine-Prints(Where are the pics taken with Phase one?). Maybee the idea is something like a Low-Fi Cat to save reporting-pics, concert images, action cams (like GoPro) and many others in web.--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 21:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
We have COM:VIC --Smial 10:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Declined And it's oooutta here. --Peulle 16:54, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Silk_cocoon,_Sopura_Silk_Mills_Ltd_(03).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Silk cocoon, Sopura Silk Mills Ltd. --Moheen Reeyad 06:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Kritzolina 19:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but I disagree: sharpness could be better but above all the CAs should be removed. --Basotxerri 21:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Basotxerri. Definitely not sharp enough anywhere, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 07:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 16:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)