Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 10 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Scharsterbrug. Hoofd van Skarrenmolen bij Hollandiastraat 7 (Rijksmonument) 002.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Scharsterbrug. Skarrenmolen bij Hollandiastraat 7 (Upper part of mill. National Monument).
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 05:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good Quality --Sixflashphoto 04:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
There are issues. I voted for this because I liked it artistically and I still do. But categorization needs to be vastly improved for a heritage site. The description should be better as well. I'm not too hung up on showing the entire windmill, this isn't a VI, but there are still issues. Sixflashphoto (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Question: What do you mean by categorization? I think everything is described including the number Oficial monuments.--Agnes Monkelbaan 20:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
     Comment Well for instance there is only one category. Now that my be the correct category. It may be the most precise category. But I would think this could be in more then one category for instance Windmills in the Netherlands. I think there could be many categories for this. I'm not saying it needs to be in every possible one, but a couple would be appropriate in my opinion. Sixflashphoto 18:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree./ Sorry, such a crop can´t become a QI. I miss the lower part. --Milseburg 15:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Milseburg. --Peulle 12:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment ::@Milseburg and Milseburg:  ::@Peulle and Peulle: I respect your opinion, but I have a question. How do you want to display the rotatable head of a mill separately without cutting down the underside? The wick extends down to the ground. See picture: --Agnes Monkelbaan 15:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. :) Question: was it just the centre of the machinery you wanted to portray, and not the wings? If so, I think you should have zoomed in on that, cropping all four wings. As it is now, with a roomy crop at the top, it looks like you tried to capture the whole rig, but cut off the bottom.--Peulle 16:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I can re-cut the picture. See note.--Agnes Monkelbaan 17:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
That still won't work, IMO, as it only gets rid of superfluous space and it's still not clear what you actually want to show the viewers with this composition.--Peulle 18:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Peulle. The head is less than 20% of the current image. If this is your subjekt it has to be larger and more centred. I made a note. But I think also that zooming is better than cutting.--Milseburg 21:37, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. Photo cropped. Thank you. for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan 06:19, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support It works for me, now.--Jebulon 09:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Current crop acceptable. But the file name should be clarified to "Scharsterbrug. Hoofd vanSkarrenmolen bij Hollandiastraat 7 (Rijksmonument)" or something like that. --Milseburg 14:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Milseburg and Milseburg: Thank you for your comment. Question: do you mean that I rename the file name?--Agnes Monkelbaan 15:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support o.k. for me.--Ermell 16:01, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Milseburg and Milseburg: ::@Sixflashphoto and Sixflashphoto: Thank you for your comment. Thank you for your comment. File Name Reappointed.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good detail and good quality -- Spurzem 19:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Definitely QI now. --Milseburg (talk) 12:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 13:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Langweer.Sweachmermolen Boarnsweachsterdyk 3 (Rijksmonument) 03.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Langweer. Sweachmer Mill Boarnsweachsterdyk 3 (Turntable of the mill. National Monument). --Famberhorst 17:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment I really don´t know, if this could become a QI. The crop on the bottom is strange concerning that the lower part of the mill is missing. Do you habe a better composition?--Milseburg 14:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Info Thank you for your comment. This photo shows a detail of the mill. The rotatable top, the axis and the year. If you want a different cut, please add a note.--Famberhorst 15:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Reading file name and description, I expect not only the upper part. I miss the bottom of the mill and the end of one wing. --Milseburg 16:22, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, description adapted.--Famberhorst 16:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I can´t promote this crop. Feel free to send it to CR. --Milseburg 11:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • more opinions please.--Famberhorst 16:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much room on the top and not enough on the bottom. Perhaps shooting portrait would have been better.--Peulle 10:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. New version. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst 15:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Current crop acceptable.--Peulle 13:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Current crop acceptable to me as well. -- Sixflashphoto 21:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Milseburg. --Ermell 22:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support acceptable now. --MB-one 18:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Current crop acceptable. But the file name should be clarified to "Langweer. Hoofd van Sweachmermolen Boarnsweachsterdyk 3 (Rijksmonument)" or something like that. --Milseburg 14:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
@Milseburg and Milseburg: Thank you for your comment. Thank you for your comment. File Name Reappointed.--Famberhorst 16:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 13:23, 9 October 2017 (UTC)