Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 02 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Sandpile_Matemateca_13.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mathematical object for illustrating angles of repose (sandpile) on display at Matemateca (IME/USP), by Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton --Joalpe 00:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Basotxerri 16:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Conditional oppose Technically QI, but there is a problem with the {{Matemateca-USP-license}} template, which appears to be missing an argument, see under the OTRS box. -- Slaunger 00:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
    •  Support Issue has been resolved. -- Slaunger 12:14, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Slaunger 22:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Bochnia 01 - Casimir III Statue.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Statue of Casimir III (‘The Great’) atop Column in Market Square (Rynek) of Bochnia, east of Kraków --Scotch Mist 07:13, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, which is not the case here. Image quality would be ok. --Uoaei1 20:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support The new file name is ok, and also the image quality --Uoaei1 21:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree with Uoaei1. I think "Bochnia_01.jpg" is a perfectly adequate file name. It is the name of location of the statue, and it is is in no way misleading. The primary objective for the file name is to be a unique identifier - the details of what it is about should be in the description. -- Slaunger 21:56, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm with Uoaei1; Bochnia is a place, not a statue. Since a file name change is so easy to do, I oppose for now.--Peulle 15:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Clearly I am still learning here but did not think that file naming required to be so specific which in turn is likely to slow the process of uploading multiple images. Have requested renaming the file to "Bochnia 01 - Casimir III Statue.jpg" which hopefully will fully comply with all necessary requirements. --Scotch Mist 17:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Peulle (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Uoaei1 (talk) 21:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

File:DANSEUSE_OULED_NAIL.jpg[edit]

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 20:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Auschwitz_I-17.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination No Escape from ”Starvation” Sculpture by Mieczysław Stobierski at Auschwitz I, Poland --Scotch Mist 15:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Window is overexposed. HDR may have helped, or the usage of flash at the very least --A.Savin 14:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you for your feedback - metaphorically there was nothing to be seen from the windows of their cell blocks, ie no hope, for the starving captives of Auschwitz, but perhaps this is not a valid consideration in assessing the QI of this photo in which case I presumably should withdraw it. --Scotch Mist 20:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It might be a valid consideration, but I'm having trouble seeing how it's relevant to the overexposed window. You're thinking that emphasizing blinding light outside is a powerful metaphor? You may be right for some people, but it's lost on me. I'd rather see more of the faces of the unfortunate starving victims. I think the statue is less effective if the viewer can't see much of it because it's mostly in shadow. -- Ikan Kekek 09:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --W.carter 20:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Soda_fountain_in_São_Paulo_downtown.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Soda fountain --The Photographer 03:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. The background and the person aren't sharp. --XRay 07:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think that it's now fixed --The Photographer 21:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  • It's sharper, but the background is still unsharp. IMO f/4 was too small, f/5.6 or f/6.3 may be better. --XRay 06:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - It's a nice photo, but the focus is insufficient for QI in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 05:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments and recomendations --The Photographer 21:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable IMO, because I don't think the background is very important for this image. --Christian Ferrer 12:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --W.carter 20:19, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Facade_of_House_in_Porlamar.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Facade of House --The Photographer 13:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Much of the facade is a bit grainy, but I find the door intolerable for QI. Sorry. -- Ikan Kekek 14:09, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment Let me know what do you think. --The Photographer 00:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment - I'm still not satisfied, but let's see what other people think. -- Ikan Kekek 05:22, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, same as Ikan.--Jebulon 16:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --W.carter 20:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Antigonea_house_with_peristyle.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Antigonea, Southern Albania: ruins of an illyrian house with peristyle. By User:Albinfo --1989 18:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Weak  Support Good quality. Sharpness could be better. EXIF data missing. --XRay 06:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition is good, but I think technical quality is not high enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 07:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - I disagree. I think the foreground is sharp enough, and it's OK for the background to be hazy and unsharp. -- Ikan Kekek 10:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Michielverbeek.--Jebulon 16:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry,per Michielverbeek --Livioandronico2013 18:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 16:06, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Lior_Kenan.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Channel 10 News (Israel) Journalist. By User:Channel10israel --Cvmontuy 18:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 19:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The portrait is of great quality but the rework of the background is not, see hair --Poco a poco 20:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed. --A.Savin 14:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I am fine with this, it is a good portrait and the issue with the hair is not too visible --Uoaei1 13:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. The distortion of the hair is something that once seen cannot be unseen. -- Ikan Kekek 14:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose idem.--Jebulon 16:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --W.carter 20:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Screw_conveyor_moving_grape_stems_at_Chateau_Montelena.gk.webm[edit]

  • Nomination A screw conveyor on the end of a grape destemmer, moving the stems up to a truck to be carried off. --Grendelkhan 07:42, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 08:20, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The video was recorded using a wrong propotion (vertical). --The Photographer 15:10, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Question - The Photographer, can you please explain further? You mean because the conveyor isn't at right angles from the bottom of the picture frame, that's wrong? If so, why is it wrong? -- Ikan Kekek 13:29, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Pending a response to my question, I will  Support, lest the nomination lapse for not being decided in 8 days of discussion. -- Ikan Kekek 11:07, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have no idea how to judge videos in the same way as photos, so I'm just going to say what I think: In this case, the video shows the moving screw. If it had been filmed in horizontal mode, a lot of the screw's motion would have been cut off and thus part of the subject lost. I therefore  Support in this instance.--Peulle 11:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am quite disturbed by vertical videos. If it had been filmed in horizontal mode, the viewing of the video would have been much more confortable and natural. I agree with Peulle that the framing of the screw's motion would would have been changed by an horizontal mode, and thereby required another framing, maybe from another point of view. Imho, the placement of the camera is as important in the making of a video as it is in the making of a photograph. TL;DR: Vertical videos are disturbing, more careful placement of the camera would allow horizontal filming and thus a better video. Gyrostat 14:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --W.carter 20:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)