Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 03 2019

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Concerta_aon_dhuillear.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Concerta 27mg and a United States $1 Bill --E.3 06:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Insufficient quality. --Podzemnik 08:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks for that. I can take this image again, will request help from a good photographer E.3 10:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support It needs better categorization, but the image quality seems ok to me. --MB-one 11:36, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment - OK, IMO, but you need to add a category for the dollar bill. -- Ikan Kekek 06:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks yes I added $1 and medical controversies as thats obviously what it is E.3 15:06, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - The sharpness of the dollar bill is arguable, but I think that it's good enough in context. -- Ikan Kekek 15:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 22:12, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Gazelle (Nanger granti), Tsavo East National Park, Kenýa.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Grant's gazelle in Tsavo East National Park --E.3 00:30, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Pudelek 01:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
     Oppose Picture is unsharp. (Btw, the file name is meaningless) --A.Savin 14:07, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    thanks again for your meaningless comment, Mr Savin. The word "meaningless" has a lot of deep meaning to many people, and I suggest that you do not use it. E.3 06:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 Comment QI criteria actually demand that the file name be "meaningful", i.e. it should be specific for what is shown by the image. Here the main subject is a gazelle, but the file name seems to say just "Nature in Kenya". The word "meaningful" is used by the guidelines. It is not Savin's personal wording, so there is nothing to complain about. --Johannes Robalotoff 21:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 Comment Yes I do know that, but artistic "mentally ill" but not really people like me can get very offended by that word in particular. I have apoloigsed to Mr Savin for the attack above and I'm just trying to build consensus to avoid using some of the words that made me not want to contribute to the amazing project of the Wikimedia Commons. A lot of good artists "struggle", and many misunderstand each other on the internet like me. I'm happy to change it to a more descriptive word of course but I'd just like it to remain in the original language. E.3 11:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 19:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per M.Savin. Very unsharp on the head. -- Ikan Kekek 21:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Neutral There is no focus problem. The picture looks unsharp in the background and on the fur of the animal, because noise reduction was a bit too aggressive. Lens sharpness also falls off to the border, which is common for many affordable lenses at open apertures. I could live with that for this special subject. However it is a matter of taste, and I know that QI standards have become more picky in that respect during the last years. Thus I stay neutral. --Johannes Robalotoff 21:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Not the sharpest, but still acceptable. --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 22:11, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

==

[edit]
  • Vote changed until the point below has been addressed.--Peulle 21:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I doubt this is a photo taken by a commoner. Only one contribution by that user, and in the exif the autor's name is "SEFPRO". --Smial 23:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose agree smial Seven Pandas 03:56, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Milseburg 22:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Citroen_2_CV_Dolly,_Bj._1987_(2012-06-10_Sp_b).JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Citroën 2 CV Dolly from 1987 in motion Spurzem 20:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Downsized? In any case I think it's got too low resolution with too little detail for a QI. --Peulle 22:01, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Peulle: Apparently, the name of the nominator plays a bigger role for the positive rating of a photo than the quality of the image. I can only wonder what weak images of recent days have been classified as QI and what is devalued. I ask for discussion. -- Spurzem 22:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good enough. Action shot with about 6 MPix. --Smial 11:14, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support "Downsized"? It still has almost 6 MP. It has obviously been cropped, which is OK according to the rules. So what is the problem here? Good quality, no doubt. --Palauenc05 21:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Palauenc05. --Johannes Robalotoff 22:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support --Famberhorst 07:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 22:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Московский_Кремль_Москва-река.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Kremlin and Moskva River --E.3 04:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality, metadata would be appreciated --Trougnouf 11:48, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please, improve the categories first, that building is called Kremlin. The current categories are very poor. The bottom right crop and the level of sharpness are not really convincing, either. --Poco a poco 19:00, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  conditional needs proper categorization --Trougnouf 19:27, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Thanks for the comments I have recategorized. Can anyone help with the metadata being on the main image? --E.3 03:13, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Metadata will automatically show up if they're embedded on the image. Some software (s.a. bm3d-gpu) will strip metadata, and there are programs that can restore it (eg "exiftool -TagsFromFile imagewithmetadata.jpg imagemissingmetadata.jpg") --Trougnouf 17:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I would support, but you need to include Category:Moscow Kremlin and Category:Moskva River in Moscow, not parent categories as you do now. -- Ikan Kekek 20:40, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • thanks I've made it as per those categories now I couldn't work out why there was not Kremlin category E.3 00:42, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp, image is tilted (anti-clockwise), the light is not good, as well as the cut at the right. --A.Savin 02:24, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support per my remarks above, though if there's a tilt, try to remedy it. -- Ikan Kekek 08:22, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
    Actually I thought QIC should be viewed at 100% to review it adequately. Here in this picture, obviously, already in preview enough issues are visible to say "no QI". Disappointing, IkanKekek --A.Savin 14:28, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Why do you think it's necessary to view all photos at 100% to determine whether they're QIs? As for tilts, I'm simply not that good at seeing them, but I do think E.3 should remedy any tilt there is. -- Ikan Kekek 09:59, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  • As for this picture, I wrote that already in preview flaws are visible, so you seem to be missing the point. And yes, of course it is necessary to view at 100% to judge the sharpness and noise -- at least I don't know any other way. --A.Savin 01:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I think a bit of unsharpness or noise at a huge full size is unimportant, generally speaking. I found the light OK and didn't mind the crops. I also find it hard not to support when I said I would if x or y condition were fulfilled. -- Ikan Kekek 22:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I only know how to change the tilt with my iphone which i dont really like using at the moment so i'll ask at the image workshop E.3 03:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 13:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)