Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 17 2017

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:2014_Bożków,_pałac_19.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Bożków Palace 4 --Jacek Halicki 06:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality, Tournasol7 07:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Imo since it is an almost frontal take, you should correct also the horizontal lines --Moroder 07:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Perfect, thanks --Moroder 09:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Poco a poco 16:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --W.carter 07:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Balloërveld, natuurgebied in Drenthe 35.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Walking tour of the Balloërveld. Dead tree as artwork on a zandverstuifing. --Famberhorst 17:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Vertical lines are not straight (see the note). Image needs perspective correction --Halavar 20:29, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your comment. I do not see a note. Do you want to add it?--Famberhorst 04:55, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Until now no response from Halavar has been received. Are there more opinions?--Famberhorst 15:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me. --Basotxerri 05:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 10:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Vertical lines - in a nature shot like this? I don't think I can see a single straight line so I don't see a problem. Perhaps a couple of very tiny spots in the sky (looks like birds) could be cloned out, but it's still a QI as is, in my book.--Peulle 19:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Poco a poco 16:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Poco a poco 16:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Ebermannstadt_BMW_R75_military_17RM1329.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Motorradgespann BMW R 75 der Wehrmacht aus dem Zweiten Weltkrieg --Ermell 07:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 07:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Missing category, location --A.Savin 03:22, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for adding. --A.Savin 14:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support We had this discussion once before and I never got the second opinion I asked for; it will be interesting to see if we can get some more views on this. My point was that I never understood why every image needs to have the name of a city in its categories unless it's relevant to the subject. Just now, I looked a bit more thoroughly at the Categorization page and the guidelines do indeed say that we should add categories for what, where, when etc. And indeed this very image is categorized with the time: "Photographs taken on 2017-07-09". What I keep claiming, though, is that not all such information is useful and the guidelines do in fact seem to agree: "The above questions cover the main aspects of the image to be categorized. For some images it makes sense to use all, for other images only one or two are reasonable.". That's the rule I go by - if it makes sense to specify (by categorization) where an image was taken, do so. An image like this, though, I'm not sure falls under that scope. It's a motorcycle on a road, does it really matter whether it was in Berlin, Leipzig or Koblenz? How does such a category help the search engine? People searching for a city will get all sorts of images just because the photo happened to be taken there - does that not in fact produce the opposite effect that people won't be able to easily find what they're looking for since their city category gets clogged up with everything from motorcycles to trampolines? Looking forward to hear what others have to say on this subject.--Peulle 11:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I think that if the "what, where and when" is known, it should always be provided unless there are specific reasons not to. This is not just a collection of snaps to be used in Facebook collages, it can be much more useful than that. Say that you are researching this type of motorcycles ten years from now and you are trying to track down some specific bikes, who owned them and where they were used. If you found this photo, it would be helpful if the location was on the photo. Or... we don't know who is driving this bike, but in 2029, this person may be world famous and someone could be writing a biography about him/her. The writer may know that the person owned such a bike and finding this photo, a location tag of some sort on the photo may help that writer discover where this person was at that time. Bottom line is: We don't know how our photos will be used and all info that is possible to provide in an easy way should be given. (In 1913 this was just a snap of some scholars playing.)
BUT, I also suspect that the rules for categorization were written before geotags were common or even before cameras had GPS information. In this case there is a geotag. I think it might be time to open up a new discussion somewhere about if a photo can skip the location category if a geotag is provided instead. --cart-Talk 14:35, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality! Ich muss vorsichtig sein, A.Savan's Kritik zu bewerten; denn wahrscheinlich würde er mich wieder sperren. -- Spurzem 11:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Ich muss Ihnen auf die Sprünge helfen: User:A.Savan ist kein Admin und kann somit nicht sperren. --A.Savin 14:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
@A.Savin: Da hatte ich mich tatsächlich vertippt. Aber Sie erinnern sich wahrscheinlich sehr genau, was und wer gemeint ist. -- Spurzem 16:06, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --W.carter 07:27, 16 July 2017 (UTC)