Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 22 2016

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:16-11-18-Holzfelge_mit_Schlauchreifen-RR2_7364.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Fahrradfelge aus Holz mit Schlauchreifen --Ralf Roletschek 22:06, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn
  •  Support Good quality -- Spurzem 22:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Just barely 2 mpix, not enough quality for this size, the bicycle will not runaway and deserves a better photo --A.Savin 16:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Ralf, Alexander, could you please, keep off each others QICs?. If not I'll surely have the opportunity to ask for that in the next thread in ANU. That should be possible and we have enough QICs here. Your conflict is not just affecting both of you but the QI community, as well. I am asking for your help. Poco a poco 18:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment @Poco a poco: I would be really very glad not to have anything to do anymore with this liar; but unfortunately, in this case - as I know from experience - each day several of poor nominations will be promoted to QIC by him, as well as several of his own nominations of picture which for various reasons aren't matching QI standards will be promoted by other users as "payment" for promotions made by him. So, unfortunately, I have to monitor at least a part of his edits at QIC, because otherwise nobody will do it. Your treat I have to ignore; but if you have the opinion that MY activities on QIC are in some way harmful for the project, you can try to initiate a ban proposal for me. If (and hopefully) not, please leave me alone with your treats and better monitor some of all the spam put by Roletschek every day here; you'll surely do a favor to Commons with it, as I'm not able to control all the mess alone. --A.Savin 00:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Alexander, I don't understand your reaction. I was not threatening you with the ANU or something else, I meant that it is a matter of time that both of you end up again in ANU and then I'd exactly ask for what I asked you two here. My comment was not in your direction, but in both, towards you and towards Ralf. I didn't question your activities in QIC, which are definitely beneficial for the project, but not necessarily when it comes to Ralf's pictures. I've moved Ralf's pictures often to CR , I've no problem with that, and in some cases it was required, but I wouldn't have done it for this picture (maybe it is just over the bar, but if I've to vote it would be neutral). Poco a poco 11:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I opposed here because a) I don't trust reviews by Spurzem at all, similarly to those by Roletschek; b) originally the picture was 1.400x1.400 (less than 2 mpix, ineligible for QI), I wanted to decline the nomination for this reason (was aready promoted by Spurzem; as we all know, Spurzem only declines something if he does not like the nominator); but what RalfR apparently did is upscaling the picture a very little bit (1.415x1.415) so that it is now just barely 2 mpix. This is surely not what I imagine from a quality image. --A.Savin 12:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Top right is very sharp but bottom left is slightly out of focus. If this were a normal resolution (e.g. 8 MP) the problem would be glaringly obvious. --King of Hearts 06:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Mit Presta valve. Its wooden. Cant be seen much. IQ good. --PetarM 08:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Since the side of the wheel is almost "flat" it shouldn't be any problem to get it sharp all the way and it isn't. If it is rare it could be VI, but this is not QI for such an object. cart-Talk 23:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 12:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Θραψανό 2278.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View of Thrapsano, Crete. --C messier 06:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment I find everything too hazy and nothing really sharp enough. And the thing is, it's not just that there's haze in the air; there's a disturbing (to me) thicket of unsharp weeds in the foreground. If you disagree with my take on this photo, feel free to go to CR, and we'll see what a majority thinks. -- Ikan Kekek 00:05, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment There are not weeds, they are olive trees, but I thought that if the village is sharp enough, there was a chance for the photo to be QI, despite the foreground. --C messier 06:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think the village is sharp enough. -- Ikan Kekek 00:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment I disagree, but won't insist. --C messier 06:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC).
      • {{cmt}} I think also, the picture isn`t sharp enough --~~~~
        •  Comment With 2 megapixel it's IMO a good picture--Lmbuga 03:01, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
          •  Comment Reviewing everything as if it had 2 MP means that we are using the lowest common denominator, and not, in my opinion, actually rating photos for quality. -- Ikan Kekek 03:36, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment There are CAs on the poles on the right handside which should be removed. --Basotxerri 21:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 17:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Abtei_Seckau_S-Ansicht_01.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Seckau Abbey, Styria --Uoaei1 05:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, IMO the image isn't sharp enough and the focus is on the trees in the foreground and not on the village. --Basotxerri 16:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Basotxerri. -- Ikan Kekek 07:56, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 17:31, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Sushi_in_Libertade,_São_Paulo.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sushi in Libertade --The Photographer 10:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry, but the DoF is too shallow, leaving several of the food items out of focus. --Peulle 11:14, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support So what. Most food photography is a mix of sharp and soft-focus elements. No need for every element on a plate at this (natural) angle to be sharp. -- Colin 14:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
     Comment Well, I disagree. But we'll see what folks say in CR.--Peulle 18:43, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - I'd rather the 2-4 most distant rolls were a little more sharp, but I think that everything on the plate is close enough to an acceptable range for me to tolerate those. -- Ikan Kekek 02:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but weak composition. From below the plate is cut off, on the right there is a lot of void. In general, if I wanted to show a dish, then I would photograph this plate with such unusual food separately. Concerning DoF I agree with Peulle. Though it is clear that at such lighting, f, ISO and exposure time to achieve larger sharpness, probably it is impossible --SKas 17:23, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support DoF is borderline, but all in all enough quality for QI. IMO. --A.Savin 18:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As for SKas. The use of a tripod is always reasonable. Low DOF does not support composition in this case, is disturbing instead. --Smial 19:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. Poor Dof and quality IMO, sorry--Lmbuga 01:55, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 12:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Schule Lämmersieth (Hamburg-Barmbek-Nord).Treppenturm.Detail.2.22937ajb.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Staircase of Lämmersieth school buidling in Hamburg. --Ajepbah 06:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Great angle on such an angular building, but too noisy --Daniel Case 02:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Daniel Case: Thank you for review, please have a look again, sharpened and noise reduced. --Ajepbah 20:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Question Could I have another opinion for the changed version? - Thank you! --Ajepbah 22:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too soft for a QI, crop too tight on top. Alvesgaspar 16:24, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Question There are CAs one the left roof, could you remove them please? --Basotxerri 21:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 12:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)