Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 12 2017

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Dwarf_mongoose_2014_04_29_4153.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dwarf mongoose (Helogale parvula) on a hollow log in the Kruger National Park, South Africa. --Alandmanson 12:37, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Good quality --Llez 15:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose dear Alandmanson and dear Llez it does not mach the size criteria which has to be above 2 Megapixel --IssamBarhoumi 15:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree, I didn't notice that --Llez 16:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I disagree 1816×1635px equals 2.97MP --Alandmanson 20:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good quality IMO, and it is big enough. -- Ikan Kekek 21:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support per Ikan. --W.carter 11:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think, this image is downsampled too. If the application of the downsampling-guideline is arbitrary, we should delete this guidline generally. --Milseburg 09:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose the guideline do not permit it right now in the future if the guideline is changed we can QIfy it : we have to rethink the question of sharpness and the condition of taking the shot especially when the subject is far or the light is not Good also I suggest that there is a vote here as In FP more opinion in one picture make the result better for the QI Category --IssamBarhoumi 11:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC) Don´t vote twice. I canceled your second vote --Milseburg 15:19, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Downsampled, yes, but from long range.--Peulle 15:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Question dear everybody could you explain to me what is a QI ? it is not clear for me anymore especially with this non conformity to the guideline ? --IssamBarhoumi 19:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
IMO it's a matter of opinion as to whether there is a good reason for the downsampling. If the only reason for it seems to be that if not downsampled then the image would not be good enough, then it should be declined. If there is a good reason for it, such as taking images from long range, thus leaving a lot in the frame that does not have anything to do with the subject, then a crop may be warranted.--Peulle 19:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
dear Peulle thanks for answering but I think that we have to change the guideline --IssamBarhoumi 20:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Sure, that could be one possibility. Maybe there's a discussion about that somewhere.--Peulle 13:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 Oppose Detail is not good to be 1,816 × 1,635 IMO--Lmbuga 23:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 09:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Church in Langac 09.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Church in Lagnac, Rodelle, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 22:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose 1/1,000 sec (0.001). Random exposure time IMO--Lmbuga 22:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Surely an image cannot be declined on exposure time alone? If at all, for high ISO in broad daylight, but I do not see a problem here --DXR 06:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment A photographer can use any settings they like when taking a photo as long as the result is good. Here you need to get rid of the chromatic aberration up in the trees and elsewhere though (this has nothing to do with exposure time). There are also some bugs/birds in the sky that could be cloned out while you are at it. Can you fix that please? --W.carter 11:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA needs removal.--Peulle 15:49, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I uploaded ✓ New version. I removed chromatic aberration and I cloned some bugs on the sky. Tournasol7 22:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Looks like you did more than that; the buildings on the right are now leaning in. What happened?--Peulle 06:23, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 09:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)