Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 13 2019

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Animal_on_a_farm_in_the_Altai_Mountains_04.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Killing the animal at the shepherd's camp --Alexandr frolov 14:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. Please assign meaningful categories in the future --MB-one 15:15, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose head is cropped. Charlesjsharp 22:35, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support It's showing the act of killing a cousin vividly w/o getting gory in a nerdy way. Btw. I'm not enjoying my soy drink although I should. Or shouldn't I?--Tobias ToMar Maier 06:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Charles. Let alone the disgusting motif. --Palauenc05 08:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed highlights and too tight right crop.--Peulle 10:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Besides the handicraft problems I´m unable to promote such repulsing motifs. --Milseburg 10:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose no QI for me.--Fischer.H 16:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment May I just take a moment to appeal to all reviewers to please keep in mind the criteria for judging QIs - chiefly technical quality. We may not like the subject of a particular image, but Commons is about documenting all kinds of human endeavour, including things some of us may find disgusting. Thank you.--Peulle 19:56, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, 100%! -- Ikan Kekek 00:40, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I fully agree with Peulle. --PtrQs 19:28, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment No, 100%! What will be the next level of "human endeavour", we are ready to promote? A pile of excrement in excellent condition? In my opinion it will be a perversion of Commons, not to take the motif into consideration. I will always feel free to mention my disgust as in the present example, and if necessary, use it as a criterion to oppose. --Palauenc05 08:31, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • And why, pray, is a pile of excrement not a valuable photographic illustration? Are we going to exclude all things that we don't like to look at? As you can tell, that is not Commons policy. To me, that would be like removing from Wikipedia all historic people we don't like. Also, I cannot accept that QIC judges take it upon themselves to invent their own guidelines; please read the QIC guidelines and discuss any wanted changes to them in the appropriate place. As of right now, FP images are judged using more personal subjective evaluations, but QIs are not. QIs are judged using technical requirements. Just to finish my argument by proving Palauenc05 wrong in using personal disgust as a valid criterion in QIC, I quote from the Guidelines: "good photographs are not limited to evoking pleasant sensation".--Peulle 11:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, 100% per Paulenc05! --Milseburg 10:56, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • A pile of excrement could not only be a useful image, it could even be a great photo. Although there are real problems with this photo, I feel impelled to  Support it for balance because several of the opposing votes are in bad faith. It's fine not to be emotionally able to support a photo on a particular subject; we're all human. That means you can recuse yourself from voting on that subject. However, it's not OK to vote to oppose a photo as not of good quality solely because you don't like its subject matter. And if any of the opposers eat meat or wear leather or down, well then... -- Ikan Kekek 06:18, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 08:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Detail_of_the_tower_of_St._George's_Parish_Church,_Piran,_Slovenia_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Detail of the tower of St. George's Parish Church, Piran, Slovenia --Podzemnik 06:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 06:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Фигня какая то --Alexandr frolov 10:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me. --Tournasol7 23:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't understand what is supposed to be "garbage" about this. The sharpness seems fine, the perspective is fair, the categories are OK... Is Alexandr frolov just trolling or something? I'd be prepared to listen to his reasoning, but so far it doesn't seem that he has any.--Peulle 08:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes Peulle, I think Alexandr frolov is just trolling here. He already called me imbecile on my discussion mage. I think this is his "revenge" on me because I advised him to use meaningful names for his images before nominating them for QI.--Podzemnik 06:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Quite good. -- Ikan Kekek 09:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 08:16, 12 March 2019 (UTC)