Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 01 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Waymo_self-driving_car_side_view.gk.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A Waymo self-driving car on the road in Mountain View, making a left turn. (Side view.) --Grendelkhan 23:14, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Blurred --Jacek Halicki 23:58, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Please reconsider; the object is in motion but relatively sharp, similar to File:Motor cycle stunt2 amk.jpg, which fits the QI guidelines. --Grendelkhan 07:10, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Comparing a slow-moving autonomobile to a fast-moving motorcycle doesn't work for me.--Peulle 10:04, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 14:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Nuévalos,_Zaragoza,_España,_2017-01-07,_DD_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Nuévalos, Zaragoza, Spain --Poco a poco 16:59, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 00:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, but I saw some strong red/pink CAs on the left, that need to be removed. Also, it would be good to add some sharpness. --Halavar 14:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I wouldn call it "strong" if you keep an eye on the file size. ✓ New version uploaded Poco a poco 17:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Large, good picture with a bit of unsharpness on near the left and right margins. A lot of smaller pictures that are slightly unsharp throughout the entire picture are routinely promoted, and I think everyone can think of plenty examples of that. -- Ikan Kekek 05:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok, good now. QI for me --Halavar 10:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 14:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Mallnitz_Altes_Tauernhaus_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Altes Tauernhaus (2,380 metres (7,810 ft)) in the Tauern Valley near Mallnitz, High Tauern National Park, Carinthia --Uoaei1 22:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose sorry, but not sharp enough --PtrQs 03:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • New version available, lets discuss --Uoaei1 05:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support IMHO sharp enough for good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 06:45, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support--Moroder 15:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support --Milseburg 19:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Question -- and how do we read the QI-guidelines [2]: 'Images should not be downsampled (sized down in order to appear of better quality).' Here it was 17 -> 9,5 MB --PtrQs (talk) 20:05, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • haahh, it's the damn pixelpeepers! --Moroder 21:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
    • thank you for this very useful hint. So if everybody's happy with that pic, I won't persist in any standards --PtrQs (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I think this is a valid discussion. PtrQs quoted accurately. So since the image guidelines are actually not enforced to the letter, what is the operative standard, and should this guideline be edited accordingly? -- Ikan Kekek 07:36, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's an issue, yes. I usually use that rule if an image has lower resolution than this, and/or if the quality seems questionable. The typical case is an image that has not been cropped or taken with a zoom lens, but has been shot with a high res camera and has been downsampled to just above the 2MP limit.--Peulle 13:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO these guidelines should not be adapted to generally accepted low standards. I feel that there are more than a few QIs that I would rank near the limit of sharpness. But especially for those, where even a downsizing does not result in an acceptable quality, we should be able to quote this guideline. --PtrQs 18:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not really understanding this discussion. What I see is that there are sharpness issues in the previous version of this photo at full size, and that there are still some questions about the sharpness of this version at full size. In particular, the roof is a bit questionable to me without "pixel-peeping". If there were no question of downsizing, though, I'd probably just not vote. I will  Oppose, and I'd like anyone to explain why it's fine to downsize this image. -- Ikan Kekek 03:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I miss detail on the grass. --A.Savin 14:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I have seen both versions now and I don't see any compelling problems with the first version's size; the resizing seems to be done to make it appear sharper. Sharpening of the original image could work without reducing the size.--Peulle 10:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Question @PtrQs, Ikan Kekek, A.Savin, and Peulle: Dear opposers, I really do not understand how an image where you can read a text that is about 10 pixels high and about 2 pixels wide (see the hiking signs) could possibly be unsharp or show any lack of detail?! Regards, --Uoaei1 (talk) 19:32, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Well, it looks to me like the part of the roof facing us is a bit questionable, and A.Savin mentioned the grass. But I think the main objection is to your having downsampled. -- Ikan Kekek 21:41, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO, has nothing to do with the number of pixels. I don't know what happened, but the grass is totally unsharp and looks like painted with a brush. Of course both in the first and the latest version, because downsampling does not add fine detail. --A.Savin 05:02, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 14:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Haus-Nordfassade,_2017,_Oetztaler_Str._23,_München.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Modern residental house in Munich --Lucasbosch 10:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 13:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. I can´t understand the composition. Too much sky and only a part of the building? --Milseburg 20:59, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support The composition is certainly strange, with the slanty building and the plane looking as if it's diving headlong into its side, but weird doesn't mean bad quality. -- Ikan Kekek 08:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The crop doesn't fit to the description. --Palauenc05 21:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Why not? We see part of the facade. -- Ikan Kekek 00:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Milseburg Poco a poco 07:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 14:48, 28 February 2017 (UTC)