Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 29 2016

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Stuwwand van Lago del Careser. Bergtocht van parkeerplaats bij centrale Malga Mare naar Lago del Careser 02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Weir wall of Lago del Careser. Mountain hiking of parking in power station Malga Mare to Lago del Careser.
    --Famberhorst 16:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
    Both sides leaning out --Poco a poco 18:07, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support I think it's OK for QI - perspective is not that important for this particular motif --A.Savin 00:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, if it would have been a "nice to have" I'd have promoted it anyhow. It is a dam and water is not unimportant in a dam. Due to the lack of perspective correction the water on the right is not leveled, it looks awkward. --Poco a poco 09:49, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment ✓ Done. Small correction. Thank you.--Famberhorst 16:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
     Support Much better, QI to me, I think now we all agree :) --Poco a poco 08:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Nice edit. Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 07:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted Peulle 11:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Festivalgelände_-_Wacken_Open_Air_2016_42.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Impression vom Wacken Open Air 2016. By User:Huhu Uet --Achim Raschka 17:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • {{o}} Not a supportable Licence. Use CC-BY-SA 4.0 instead, it´s a image, supported by WMDE that means the community --Hubertl 23:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. cc-by-sa 3.0 unported is absolutely fine. --Smial 00:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't see this as a topis to discuss here - CC-by-sa 3.0 is a standard license for commons, therefore it is suitable for QI (and for the Festivalsommer project we can discuss a change to 4.0 as standard license at the next project workshop in January 2017) - so please discuss the picture -- Achim Raschka 05:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - The photo is fine. -- Ikan Kekek 07:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 09:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment It is completely inappropriate to threaten potential users with immediate legal action. Just because it is a community-sponsored project, it should use CC-BY-SA-4.0 here. Thanks for your kind understanding, Wikipedia should be and remain as a friendly place! --Hubertl 10:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
    Hubertl, where are those threatens?. I cannot follow you either regarding the license, 3.0 or 4.0 why is it so important? both are fine and I never check it. Poco a poco 10:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Poco a poco Contrary to most other photographers, who give user of the pictures exact indications, as they wish that they are called themselves, this is threatening with immediately legal steps. I think this is absolutely unacceptable, we have been discussing this for several years. This is the wording which I see not as a hint, but as a vicious threat:
Any other use without name and licensedesignation or insert logos or watermarks is Abgemahnt (sic!) by applicable law without warning.
It is unacceptable IMO, because these are pictures, which are supported by donations for Wikipedia. That means, due to the performance of each individual photographer here and the authors of Wikipedia.
We already have some public and legal problems in Austria (on TV, with more than 300.000 viewers !!) with one of the photographers here (Steschke). It is unacceptable that a small group of people think that Wikimedia Commons can be used as a source of personell funding, regardless of the damage they cause with their actions, but for which all other Wikimedians have to stand. Three of those people are actually active here in QI. --Hubertl 23:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Hubertl: As written above: the license is not a topic to discuss here - since it is a license suitable for commons and QIC. Nevertheless I discussed with the photographer, who never used legal actions and also is not willing to do so about this point and he took this part out of his template. The main reason for inclusion was the general practice of copyfraud in concert photogrpahy of some people, magazines ... to use available pictures and claim them as own work via watermark or logo. Concerniung CC-by-sa 3.0 vs. 4.0: I will not force anyone in the project to change the license but will discuss this in the next project workshop and hopefully find someone to explain the differences (maybe Raymond or superbass). -- Achim Raschka 08:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support The license is fine. The focus is a little soft, but the face is sharp enough.--Peulle 12:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Thank you, Achim, it is much more friendly and inviting now (as it should be!). It is in fact a very good picture, Frank made and I am happy that he is one of our photographer! But I want to make something clear: I do support legal actions in case of copy fraud, but only then, when the fraudant has got an information before. Most of the copy frauds are because of misunderstanding the rules. (as here, which costs me 1 minute to clear it]. Kindness to the world outside is the best Public Relation we can do - beside quality, of course! --Hubertl 15:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 15:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Miramar 24022016.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A panoramic view of Miramar beach.--Nikhilb239 06:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Focus has ended up more on the sand just in front of the camera than on the people and objects, horizon it tilted and the folks and objects on the right side are distorted. It is also very hazy, maybe unavoiadble, but still not good. Sorry. --W.carter 21:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - I disagree. I find this picture OK as a beach panorama, though the haze is unfortunate. -- Ikan Kekek 03:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Sorry, I rescind the support and shouldn't have brought this here. You are right about the distortions on the right side, and I should have paid more attention to that. However, if those distortions were fixed, I would reconsider. -- Ikan Kekek 13:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with the opposers. The distortion of people is annoying. Alvesgaspar 18:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 15:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Neurothemis fulvia 9590.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Neurothemis fulvia --Vengolis 01:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 02:39, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sorry, I have to disagree --A.Savin 04:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I have to agree with A.Savin; the DoF is too shallow, leaving important areas like the eyes out of focus.--Peulle 18:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Could be an interesting and unusual depiction of the darter but the subject is out of focus. Alvesgaspar 18:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 15:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Vergelegen Homestead, North wing.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Vergelegen - 18th century homestead of one of South Africa's better-known vineyards --Martinvl 10:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp. Sorry --A.Savin 12:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - That's really not bad. Photos that are way less sharp than this are constantly promoted at QIC. I mean, OK, the front door is slightly unsharp, but I don't think this is really that doubtful a case. -- Ikan Kekek 18:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
     Comment - The door handle has a fancy edge. What you are seeing is pixelation, not poor focus! Martinvl 08:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sharpness is good, but there are several overexposed areas. Could you fix that? Yann 11:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Not razor sharp but good enough considering the large depth. Alvesgaspar 18:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 19:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Imperial Russian Army 1904ic-p11r.png[edit]

  • Nomination: Rank insignia of the Imperial Russian Army, Field marshal shoulder board 1909-1917 for officers of infantry, cavalry, 1st and 2nd Guard-Infantry-Division and Guard-Cavalry-Regiment. By User:Polygon v --Niklitov 23:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Nice, but below minimum size requirement of 2MP.--Peulle 16:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 1.48 Megapixel is fine. Yann 12:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No it isn't, according to the rules. We can change the rules but shouldn't make ad hoc exceptions to them at QIC. -- Ikan Kekek 07:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 16:28, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per IK --A.Savin 13:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough.--Ermell 08:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, 2 MPix is a hard limit.--Smial 10:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --PetarM 06:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Hubertl 15:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose --Milseburg 20:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 22:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

File:1909ossr11-p07r.png[edit]

  • Nomination: Russian Empire. Zaurjad-praporshchik on Feldwebel position of Russian East-Siberian 11th riflemen regiment. By User:Polygon v --Niklitov 23:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 07:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not for me; it's too small, lower than 2MP.--Peulle 16:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Question too small for what? --Hubertl 12:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As for Peulle. --Smial 16:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 01:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 1.51 Megapixel is fine. Yann 10:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - We can choose to change the rules, but I don't think QIC is a good place to allow exceptions to rules, because most decisions are made by individuals and there are so many photos nominated here. -- Ikan Kekek 10:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per IK --A.Savin 13:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support o.k. for me--Ermell 08:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --PetarM 16:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - We're really going to have jury nullification of the rules here? In that case, shouldn't we change the rules? What clear guidelines do the jury nullifiers want to adopt? Start a thread in the appropriate place and link it here or on Commons Talk:Quality images candidates. -- Ikan Kekek 23:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 Comment +1. If we choose which rules to follow, we might as well not have the QIC at all.--Peulle 23:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 Comment I just collected all images (Bitmaps) in category QI below 2'000'000 Pixels. Possibly helpful in this discussion. --Smial 17:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
So in practice, there's been a lot of ignoring of the rule already. -- Ikan Kekek 21:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
A number of the below 2Mpx are gifs, those are very hard to make in larger format and almost useless if they are too big since the wiki-software compresses and distorts them when viewed in smaller format. Maybe some similar case could be made for drawings such as these. Are they really more useful in larger size? Just a thought. W.carter 22:07, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with changing the rules. All I ask is two things: (1) Clear guidelines; (2) No jury nullification of rules in individual cases. I think that exceptions are fine at FPC, because every photo is voted on by a group of people, with a requirement of at least 7 support votes and a 2:1 ratio of supporting to opposing votes. Here, because decisions are usually made by a single person in each case, I think we should have clear, inflexible rules where that's possible. -- Ikan Kekek 22:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I am in complete agreement with Ikan Kekek: I would not mind a rule change, but I want clear rules and I want us to stick to them.--Peulle 22:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose --Milseburg 20:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 22:54, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

File:1904ic-p11.png[edit]

  • Nomination: Rank insignia of the Imperial Russian Army, Field marshal shoulder board 1909-1917 for officers of infantry, cavalry, 1st and 2nd Guard-Infantry-Division and Guard-Cavalry-Regiment. By User:Polygon v --Niklitov 23:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 07:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not for me; it's too small, lower than 2MP.--Peulle 16:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Question too small for what? --Hubertl 12:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As for Peulle. --Smial 16:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 01:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 1.48 Megapixel is fine. Yann 10:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Too small under current rules. -- Ikan Kekek 10:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per IK --A.Savin 13:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support No problem with the size.--Ermell 08:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --PetarM 16:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Milseburg 20:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 22:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

File:1911ossr11-p07.png[edit]

  • Nomination: Russian Empire;Zaurjad-praporshchik on Feldwebel position of Russian East-Siberian 11th infantry regiment (shoulder straps of 1911-1917). By User:Polygon v --Niklitov 23:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 07:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not for me; it's too small, lower than 2MP.--Peulle 16:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Question too small for what? --Hubertl 12:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As for Peulle. --Smial 16:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 01:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support 1.51 Megapixel is fine. Yann 10:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Too small under current rules. -- Ikan Kekek 10:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per IK. Also, there is some overexposure on the CoA --A.Savin 13:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Size is o.k. for me --Ermell 08:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --PetarM 16:26, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Rules have to be changed first. --Milseburg 20:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 22:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Canal_Grande_fondaco_dei_Turchi_Palazzo_Vendramin_Calergi_Venezia.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Palaces Palazzo Belloni Battagia, Fondaco del Megio and Fontego dei Turchi on the Canal Grande in Venice. --Moroder 12:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline Weak  Oppose Insufficient quality. IMO unsharp at the left. --XRay 13:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    I disagree --Moroder 03:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
     Comment It's a lovely composition, and I've certainly seen way less focused pictures get promoted to QI, but it could be a bit sharper in places. User:Moroder, why don't you play with sharpening just a little bit? -- Ikan Kekek 06:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
     Comment Thanks for your comment. Frankly I'm not very familiar with sharpening besides that I believe that sharpening or size reduction can be done by anyone. Or is it better done on a RAW file? Cheers --Moroder 13:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Don't ask me! I know very little about technical matters. I just look and make recommendations. Perhaps someone else will give you a knowledgeable reply. -- Ikan Kekek 15:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment You should sharpen the image with your RAW file. It is not recommended to use a JPEG file for modifications if a RAW file exists. It's an easy task to sharpen the image a little bit. --XRay 18:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I tend to it. --Hubertl 18:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Left half is unsharp. Sometimes it is useful to set the AF point at an edge instead of the center (just my experience). No QI for me this way. Sorry --A.Savin 13:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support - I wish Moroder had sharpened the photo, but I think that overall, it is a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 06:17, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A nice mood and a very good composition. But the depth of field should be larger. Why such large shutter speed and little F number? -- Alvesgaspar 18:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • F/8 is not so little for a panoramic take and you need 1/1000 s when you are on a boat. This image in fact is sharper than the average QIs --Moroder 23:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Maybe it would be worthwhile for you to familiarize yourself with how to sharpen a photo in post-processing, given that if you sharpened this photo or photos like this, it/they would have been promoted, instead of facing (a likely) decline. -- Ikan Kekek 00:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 19:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Reith_bei_Seefeld_-_Pfarrkirche_hl_Nikolaus_-_Fenster_St_Josef_-_Johannes_Obleitner.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Stained glass window of Parish Church Reith bei Seefeld, showing Saint Joseph. --Haeferl 01:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 05:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry. But this window is distorted too and needs perspective correction. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 22:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Per Spurzem. Easy to apply and the image gets much better. --Basotxerri 15:00, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Corrected. Yann 20:22, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Nice, that you want to help, Yann! But: You've stretched it so that it's now unnaturally wide. I will undo your correction (at this and the other pictures). I looked up from below, so I find the perspective okay and I will not correct it. If it does not become a QI, the world does not go down. Nice greetings, --Haeferl 20:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've just searched some images of the church on the web and it seems that the windows are really straight. This means that Yann's version is the right one and I would have accepted it. But how you wish, it's your image. --Basotxerri 21:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Natürlich sind die Fenster gerade, Basotxerri, aber wenn man von unten hinauf schaut, ergibt sich eine natürliche Verzerrung wie bei einem Turm, an dessen Fuß Du stehst und hinaufschaust. Aber wenn man es geraderichtet, kann man nicht einfach das Bild oben auseinanderziehen, da das Motiv dann insgesamt in die Breite gezogen ist, was in meinen Augen eine viel schlimmere Verzerrung darstellt als die stürzenden Linien. Ich schreibe das auf deutsch, weil ich mich offenbar auf englisch nicht verständlich ausdrücken kann, sorry. Liebe Grüße, --Haeferl 22:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment OK, ist klar. I respect this opinion but I personally think it would be better (and correct in the sense of QI) to fix this, sorry. Ebenfalls viele Grüsse :-) --Basotxerri 08:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
@Haeferl: Hallo, die Schwierigkeiten kenne ich aus eigener Erfahrung nur zu gut. Trotzdem: Die perspektivisch verzogenen Bilder stellen die Fenster nicht so gut dar, dass die Fotos als Qualitätsbilder ausgezeichnet werden sollten. Hättest Du nicht die Möglichkeit gehabt, aus etwas größerer Entfernung zu fotografieren? Und wenn Du nachträglich nicht nur oben auseinanderziehst, sondern unten zusammenschiebst, vielleicht auch etwas hochziehst, dürfte ein fast natürlicher Eindruck entstehen. Doch abgesehen davon sieht auch die schwarze Umgebung der Fenster nicht gut aus. Um die Wand und die Fensternische sichtbar zu machen, habe ich gelegentlich zweimal fotografiert: Fenster normal belichtet und separat die Wand (fast) normal belichtet, danach beide Bilder zusammengefügt. Viele Grüße -- Spurzem 12:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Respectfully, this image is good quality to me. I find this view fine. -- Ikan Kekek 11:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective distortion. Yann 20:58, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Ikan. Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective must be corrected. --Llez 12:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Llez.--Ermell 08:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Of course, the geometry should be corrected. That is the usual (and appropriate imo) procedure with this kind of subject. Alvesgaspar 18:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 15:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)