Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 16 2019

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:District_of_Vanderhoof_Volunteer_Firefighter_alongside_Fire_Engine_12.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A District of Vanderhoof volunteer firefighter alongside Fire Engine 12 responding to a working fire on Victoria Street on September 26, 2019. By User:~riley (A) --~riley 23:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Sorry! Too noisy. --Steindy 00:03, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think this shot is great and the noise very reasonable for the conditions, but do you have the firefighter's permission to publish (required in Canada according to the guidelines page)? --Bobulous 18:28, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 22:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Mannersdorf_Rochusberg_99.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Objekt auf dem Rochusberg in Mannersdorf an der March (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 03:49, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 04:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
     OpposeSorry! Sensor pattern on the door and in the tree. --Steindy 10:05, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Steindy. -- Ikan Kekek 06:22, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Irrelevant --Moroder 13:54, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 10:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline {{{2}}}

File:Hossein_Mahini,_Iran_vs_Montenegro_2014-05-26.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hossein Mahini. By User:Steindy --Saayeeh 15:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Please fix the description and file names for your files. There are too generic, the names should containt names of depicted persons --Podzemnik 21:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for remembering! Done. --Steindy 21:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • No it's not done, the file name is still the same --Podzemnik 22:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay, all my files are shit. I'm not going crazy. Withdrawn! --Steindy 22:41, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, that's not very constructive solution as more of your files have a similar issue. It's not a big deal to rename them, is it? --Podzemnik 00:06, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • It IS very a big problem. I already told you that I have other things to do too. For example, edit 660 photos from today and some thousend photos from the last year. --Steindy 00:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • It might come as a surprise to you but we all have other things to do too :) However, I believe that it's in common interest to produce QI which will be good examples for others to follow. I wouldn't like other users to follow examples of your filenames --Podzemnik 03:19, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support OK, I'm taking this to CR so everyone can see it. I think there may be a bit of a misunderstanding what constitutes a "meaningful" file name. It should be something related to what the image portrays, but that doesn't mean each file has to say exactly what it shows. So fifty images taken during a football match can be named "West Ham vs Chelsea 20.8.18" and then be numbered. The proof that this is a valid method is that when uploading several files, Commons itself has an option called "Copy title (with automatic numbering)". That said, the description has to say what each image actually shows, and each image must also be properly categorized.--Peulle 08:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC).
  •  Support Dateinamen sind völlig unwichtig und sind keine Beschreibung. --Ralf Roletschek 07:14, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Nun, Dateinamen sollten zumindest nicht "misleading" oder völlig absurd sein. Für mich wäre ein "unscharfer" Dateiname kein Grund, ein Bild abzulehnen, aber völlig unwichtig ist er nicht. --Smial 09:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good quality. --Smial 09:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good photo. -- Ikan Kekek 13:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 22:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Techno-Classica_2018,_Essen_(IMG_9058).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination BMW 850 CSi at Techno-Classica 2018, Essen --MB-one 15:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Almost got a nerdgasem when I saw this. But no. Sharpness lacking. --Tobias ToMar Maier 08:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Sharpness is fine IMO. Please discuss --MB-one 09:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - I think the sharpness is OK, too. -- Ikan Kekek 06:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: The sharpness is good. But is that the only criterion for a positive rating as a quality image? -- Spurzem 16:09, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment - No, it's not, but nothing else about it strikes me as unsatisfactory. Feel free to oppose and give a reason, if that's what you'd like to do. -- Ikan Kekek 20:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO good enought for QI. --Basotxerri 13:51, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 22:32, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Azadi_Tower_on_a_clean_day.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Azadi Square (and Azadi tower) By User:بهادر های زاده --Saayeeh 19:34, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Beautiful lighting and good quality -- Spurzem 20:10, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is basically a good photo, but there are very obtrusive dust spots all over the right side of the photo. Until those are cleaned, this is not a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 23:37, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ikan Kekek. Especially the "snake" in the upper right corner is very disturbing -- DerFussi 20:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per above + chromatic aberrations. --A.Savin 21:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 10:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Oberstinkenbrunn_Kellergasse_Kirchberg_a.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Kellergasse „Kirchberg" in Oberstinkenbrunn (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 04:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Photo might have been a bit sharper. But good enough for me.--Famberhorst 05:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Pattern on both doors is visible. Maybe you could try to lower the shadows to solve that problem. --Ermell 06:50, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ermell. The pattern is visible in other places, too, just lighter. -- Ikan Kekek 14:12, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I only see the structure of the bare wooden boards. --Manfred Kuzel 14:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Pattern, as mostly in your images. I have to admit. You keep us busy with that. -- DerFussi 20:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @DerFussi: I am very sorry that I can not select faulty photos, because I simply do not see the errors on my notebook. So unfortunately there will be more, unless there is someone who selects them for me before the nomination. The camera is already in repair. --Manfred Kuzel 05:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Links am Gartenzaun und an den Türen ist wieder das komische Muster. --Ralf Roletschek 07:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Am Gartenzaun sehe ich nur dürre Äste und welke Blätter vom Vorjahr und an der Tür die Struktur der blanken Bretter. --Manfred Kuzel 08:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 10:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Mannersdorf_Rochusberg_104.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Objekt auf dem Rochusberg in Mannersdorf an der March (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 04:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality --Llez 05:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Patterns in the sky. --Tsungam 07:05, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Tsungam. -- Ikan Kekek 14:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not see any patterns. --Manfred Kuzel 14:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Tsungam. --A.Savin 21:34, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 10:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Chiesa_di_Santa_Maria_delle_Consolazioni_Brescia.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Santa Maria delle Consolazioni church in Brescia. --Moroder 04:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 04:13, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Blown hithlights here as well and some repair effords visible. Sorry. --Ermell 06:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ermell.--Peulle 13:08, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Stitching error, see image note. --Tsungam 06:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks --Moroder 11:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry! I see some more stitching errors (see notes) --Steindy 22:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 10:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Santa_Maria_delle_Consolazioni_a_Brescia.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Santa Maria delle Consolazioni church in Brescia. --Moroder 04:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 04:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Blown highlights. --Ermell 06:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ermell. Also, the top crop is too tight.--Peulle 13:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blown sky, cutted chimney. --Steindy 22:37, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 10:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Haridevpur_41_Pally_Durga_Puja_2019.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Haridevpur 41 Pally Durga Puja 2019 --Subhrajyoti07 13:37, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality, but much noise in the background. --Steindy 18:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very noisy. Sorry. --Syed07 07:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - The subject is OK. I think it's OK for the background to be unsharp and a little noisy in this context. -- Ikan Kekek 14:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support due to the noise. But the light is nice an di would support it nevertheless. -- DerFussi 20:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 22:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

File:Κεντρική_αυλή_Ελ_Μπαντί_1127.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination El Badi Palace, Marrakesh. --C messier 16:08, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality --Michielverbeek 19:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose Needs perspective correction. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 19:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support One could perhaps optimize the small remainders of CA, but the necessity of a perspective correction does not make sense to me. Good enough as it is. --Smial 06:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support as well, per Smial. No need forperspective correction. But I would cut out a bigger part of the water and some sky. A more panoramic format would fit better to the building. But this is just my own taste. -- DerFussi 20:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Purple CA on the left palm need to be fixed. --A.Savin 21:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support For me weak QI despite the slight CA -- Spurzem 22:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 22:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)