Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 19 2016

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Mcintosh-MC240-glow.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Long exposure high quality promotional-style picture of a glowing tube amplifier by high-end McIntosh brand. --B137 10:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Satdeep Gill 10:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now, due to numerous dust spots (I mean from dust on the lens, not dust that was actually on the surfaces you took a picture of). Once you fix those, I'll be satisfied because I think the angle is fine. -- Ikan Kekek 11:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  CommentOh bloody hell, and I didn't take the pic, an apparently overzealous employee with a Hasselblad camera did. 98% of the pop would call this a great image. B137 11:23, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I disagree with you, and I think most other QIC judges who look at this will disagree with you, too. Do you not see the dust spots? -- Ikan Kekek 11:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
    Hold on: Was this picture taken by someone who isn't a member of Commons? If so, it's per se ineligible for QI. -- Ikan Kekek 11:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • And the other point that's very important to make, B137, is that representing someone else's photo as your own at QIC is a fundamental breach of procedure. There is a clear procedure for nominating other Commons users' photos here. It's laid out above for all to read and heed. Have you been nominating other photographs by others as your own? If so, which ones? -- Ikan Kekek 22:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Uh oh, I'm in trouble then, I guess. I didn't know that. I've nominated at least 10 of my own in the past, but the past few were not mine, including the one of the train passing by a town in Spain, I did notify the uploaded with a congrats. I wasn't trying to steal credit, as far as I can tell it's a commons image with a PD:own license. B137 00:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oops, one little amendment, it's not PD-self, it's CC, but still self. B137 03:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Numerous dust spots and extensive noise. Both are fixale though. Alvesgaspar 18:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Much too noisy for a studio shot. Also, the DoF is too shallow, losing focus near the far end.--Peulle 08:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 08:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

File:NN Kremlin 08-2016 img7.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Nizhny Novgorod: Dmitrievskaya Tower of the Kremlin --A.Savin 17:14, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree - it's too distorted. --Ralf Roletschek 20:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This building looks amazing and too distorted--Lmbuga 21:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Has been properly perspective corrected, so OK for me. -- King of Hearts 23:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Hubertl 17:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too imposing distortion for my taste. I suppose the small focal length is (also) to blame. Alvesgaspar 19:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The distorted perspective on this image is quite severe. Quite literally, it gave me a headache to look at the full version of the image for more than a few seconds. Shame, because its quality is great. BU Rob13 02:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to QIC. I'm honoured of being your very first (and probably also last) point of interest here. --A.Savin 03:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Need perspective fix, however, It's QI IMHO --The Photographer 13:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • {{s}} as The Photographer --Hubertl Hulbert 09:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
 Comment Sorry, Hulbert, you have voted twice--Lmbuga 14:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Well done considering the conditions. OK for QI. --Milseburg 14:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --PetarM 19:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 08:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)