Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 14 2018

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Oriental_Garden_Lizard_06.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Garden Lizard at National Botanical Garden of Bangladesh. By User:Azimronnie --Masum-al-hasan 06:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality, Tournasol7 06:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 Question Can I just ask ... is having an artificial background not allowed? There are many shots here where people remove the background in editing programs, so I thought that was OK even for QIs?--Peulle 11:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't know. WE all have different standards I know, but I will always oppose a wildlife image that has a 100% fake background and anyone who does this type of heavy post-processing must disclose using the appropriate template. Charlesjsharp 11:53, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
@Charlesjsharp: I am not sure about the background and I have no direct communication with the photographer. Thank you.--Masum-al-hasan 11:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Charlesjsharp. --Smial 21:31, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support main subject in good light, colour, a little bit over-processed, but not a killer. Just a reminder {{Retouched image}} is for derivative files... and now animals in artificial background is a problem? Rodrigo.Argenton 05:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the background is credible, but it looks overprocessed to me. Or to be more precise: sharpened to look awesome at smaller sizes (which it certainly does) and then exported at a resolution that's too large to hide it. Not as bad as this one, but still quite noticeable. --El Grafo 13:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Basotxerri 17:14, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Desert_elephant_(Loxodonta_africana)_female_head.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Desert elephant (Loxodonta africana), Namibia --Charlesjsharp 20:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Ear cut off - the bottom crop is not ideal either. --Peulle 21:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with your critique of the composition, but I don't believe that is a valid reason to reject at QI. Hence will ask for 2nd opinion if you don't mind. Charlesjsharp 09:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 Info To answer Charles' concern about the validity of the rejection, I refer to the Guidelines: please see under "Composition", where it says that an image may be declined for one of several compositional reasons, one being "Too tight crop". That was the reason for my oppose - just so you know I didn't pull my opinion out of thin air.--Peulle 11:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but this is not a crop of the LHS! You cannot judge against animal (or people) portraits that are nearly always cropped. I guess QI would have rejected this award-winner [award-winner]. Weird rules if you are right. Charlesjsharp 12:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
People portraits may be another matter, but a portrait that cuts off a person's right ear would quite probably be rejected. The link you posted isn't working for me, btw.--Peulle 06:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with the critiques, I wouldn't call it a FP but it is still good enough for a QI to me. -- Sixflashphoto 19:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Composition is (formal) a valid reason for rejection, but should imho not be the only one, if no other relevant issues are present. Of course such an image can not be a FP, where composition strongly matters. --Smial 21:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
    •  Comment QI and FP are to completely different matters. Please don't conflate them. --MB-one 12:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
"Hä?" --Smial 12:56, 7 May 2018 (UTC)4
  •  Oppose unfortunately poor composition. --MB-one 12:06, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support in my eyes good composition. --Ralf Roletschek 22:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the composition isn´t working for me. --Milseburg 20:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Peulle -- Suisant7 15:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 11:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)