Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 18 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Ambiorix_statue_on_the_Grote_Markt_of_Tongeren_(DSCF4344).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ambiorix statue on the Grote Markt of Tongeren (Belgium) --Trougnouf 14:00, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Some of the main parts are underexposed (too dark shadows). --Gordito1869 11:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree, detail is visible throughout the whole statue. --Trougnouf 11:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done new version uploaded with less harsh contrasts --Trougnouf 12:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Better now. --Gordito1869 15:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support The new version looks good. Greetings --Dirtsc 06:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 18:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

==[edit]

  • Nomination Latvian Freedom Monument – Independence Memorial in Riga (rear angle) --Scotch Mist 05:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 09:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose hardly tilted, and fundament of the monument is partially cropped --Augustgeyler 18:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Augustgeyler: As indicated this photograph was taken at a different "angle" from the conventional so issues of tilt and perspective are a calculated compromise, as is the cropping (because to show all of the substantial base of the monument would have significantly altered the photograph from what I had first conceived). Of course as this is not a 'straightforward' photograph others will have different but perfectly valid opinions on this but it seems disrespectful, and I believe generally outside of accepted practice here, to regularly 'oppose' the reviews of others who take the time to provide initial reviews. Almost every image nominated for QI could be questioned on one level or another, some simply on the basis of a lack of contrast making images appear dull and uninteresting, but if we all spent time questioning every one else's reviews the end result would likely be that many fewer images would be nominated for QI because not everyone has the time to engage in sometimes protracted discussions. As you appear to have plenty of time on your hands, I would respectfully suggest that you use this to review previously un-reviewed images which I think would be a more constructive use of your talents, especially if you come to appreciate a broader range of perspectives!:) --Scotch Mist 05:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment Dear @Scotch Mist: I am very sorry if you thought I am not respectful for others reviews or your nominations in general. I do respect them. I try to review more unreviewed images than those which are reviewed by others. In that special case, I took the time to carefully check your nomination. Than I found, that it might not meet the guidelines. This has nothing to do whether I would like your image in an exhibition or on instagram. I personally like it. But here I came to the conclusion, that your nomination at least should be discussed. Perhaps I am wrong. Let's see what other find. --Augustgeyler 09:35, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Augustgeyler: Thank you for your further comment - appreciate the time taken to review the images of others but perhaps overall you could better balance the number of images you 'oppose' with the number of your reviews that provide constructive feedback or which you 'support' - please see my response to Trougnouf below --Scotch Mist 14:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't understand the issue. The image is tilted, and the contrast is too harsh imo. Those issues seem to be easily fixable (-2.1degrees, lighter shadows). If you prefer to leave it at that then you are welcome to, but understand that it doesn't meet the QI image guidelines so there is no point in arguing for a label that simply shows that it meets these guidelines. Not all angles, subjects, and conditions can meet those guidelines, and it's fine to have images that are not QI (They can even be "Valued images"). If you believe that you have exceptional images then Commons:Featured picture candidates is the place to post, where artistic vision is valued and the image guidelines are not as strictly followed. --Trougnouf 06:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Trougnouf: ✓ Done Thank you for your feedback - essentially differences of opinion on the technical aspects of this image are not so much the issue here (have already uploaded a new version with a 'tilt adjustment' based on the central vertical of the column, rather than a base sculpture vertical that I thought made the image better 'balanced' aesthetically, and have lightened the shadows) but the repeated opposing of the expressed support of others, even when opposition seems more subjective than technical. Of course if it is spotted that a reviewer has missed the fact that the resolution of an image is below the stipulated cut-off, then this is not a subjective opinion, but often levels of brightness/darkness and contrast, as well as cropping are more subjective and IMHO some discretion should be left with the photographer who created the image. Over recent weeks Augustgeyler has 'opposed' many images, not just mine, often after those images have already been promoted by third parties, yet Augustgeyler has rarely provided a 'non-opposing constructive review' advising possible improvements (in my case never) which overall either results in many more images requiring consensual discussion, or regrettably, in generally discouraging the nomination of more images for QI. This does not mean that the promotion of images should not be opposed, especially on clear technical grounds, but where others have taken the time to review images IMO their views should generally be respected except when obvious errors have occurred such as 'dust spots' missed or important features cropped or omitted. --Scotch Mist 14:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Thank you! I think the sky could use some denoising but it's definitely in the realm of QI now.
    I very much appreciate oppose votes, whether they are the initial vote or a discussion.They are much more difficult to give out than a simple "Good quality." which never demands argumentation. I think many people will leave pictures unreviewed because they see a flaw that they would like corrected but they don't voice it for various reasons (don't think the fix would be enough for QI, simply unsure, don't know how to argument it, there is unwanted required followup if it's not a direct oppose, not wanting to hurt one's feelings, ...) and so the submitter never gets constructive criticism or any feedback. Likewise there are many flaws that go unnoticed so pointing them out and moving pictures to discussion helps ensure that the quality standards remain, otherwise this whole thing is rather pointless. (There is no taking back the QI label after 48h, it's timeless.) This also puts less pressure on reviewers and so someone new and less experimented won't necessarily be as intimidated to review knowing that it may be checked over. Some reviewers may be distracted (there are a lot of pixels to look at in an image, approximately 6 millions at a reasonable zoom level imo) and some reviewers care more about some aspects than others while ultimately all of the guidelines should be followed. Finally some reviewers accidentally cross the fine line between subjective and objective, and the discussion is the perfect place to collectively draw these lines and attempt reaching a consensus. I haven't followed most of this but I often agree with the discussions that are currently in place due to User:Augustgeyler's reviews. Also I see an instance where an image was opposed and User:Augustgeyler moved it to discussion (File:Amalfi_Cathedral_-_Duomo_di_Amalfi_(4908).jpg), or an image was promoted by User:Augustgeyler but it was opposed (File:Zingzing_Bar_Suraj_Tal_Himachal_Jul19_D72_10907.jpg). Of course this is anecdotal evidence of this moment rather than a few weeks, so in the absence of contradictory evidence my best course of action is to Commons:Assume good faith. --Trougnouf 16:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Thank you Trougnouf! I supported images in the first place which where opposed by others later, as well as I opposed nominations after others had supported them. I do not see any problem with both situations because both can help finding the best conclusion. In this case I saw MB-one supporting the nomination with "Good quality". So I tried to carefully argument my oppose. The edit improved the image in my eyes, so I changed to neutral. --Augustgeyler (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment In general, I agree with Trougnouf. I would not oppose the image for the contrast, but I think, the tilt should be corrected and you should clarify the description to show that it is a view from the "back side". Greetings --Dirtsc 06:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 Comment @Dirtsc: ✓ Done Thank you for your comment - see above response to Trougnouf (corrected image uploaded) --Scotch Mist 14:02, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 Support now. It looks better than before and the crop of the base isn't disturbing. Thanks for your explanation. I can understand quite a lot of your feelings, it's always discouraging, if there comes only the rejection of the nomination and not a constructive review. Greetings --Dirtsc 16:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 18:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Wartehäusle_in_Trogen_An_der_Zech_20201002_DSC4168.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A bus stop in Trogen. --PantheraLeo1359531 19:25, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Tesla 18:10, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Inadequate lighting situation. Main object is in shadow with very low contrast. --Augustgeyler 12:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Alright in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 05:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Not the best lighting conditions, but there's nothing really technically wrong with the image.--Peulle 08:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support per Peulle. (unsigned votes are not countable --Augustgeyler 09:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC))
  •  Neutral IMO the image is improvable. Contrast in the shadows should be better to see more details, sky should be improved too. --XRay 17:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 09:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Old_Town,_Zadar_(P1080837).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Entrance to the Rector's Palace in the Old town of Zadar, Croatia --MB-one 13:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Please fix the vertical lines --Moroder 10:43, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Not done in 7 days --Moroder 15:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Uploaded new version --MB-one 09:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support--Moroder 09:44, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is definitely not the "Old town of Zadar", just a house badly cropped on the right. --Palauenc05 21:46, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose vote withdrawn after correction. --Palauenc05 14:12, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable to me. -- Ikan Kekek 05:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "Quality images shall have a meaningful file name ... and have an accurate description". This is the part of a house, not the "Old town of Zadar". --Palauenc05 08:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose with Palauenc05. --Augustgeyler (talk) 08:56, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  •  Neutral thank you! --Augustgeyler 18:34, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 09:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)