Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 07 2017

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Open wing position of Stibochiona nicea Gray, 1846 – Popinjay WLB DSC 4016.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Open wing position of Stibochiona nicea Gray, 1846 – Popinjay (by Sandipoutsider) --Atudu 15:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Shankar Raman 16:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, the overexposed areas are too bright and distracting, not a QI to me --Poco a poco 22:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support They are very bright, but the colours aren't too bad overall. Charlesjsharp 22:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support While I see Poco's point, it seems to me the standards at QIC have been to accept images of this quality for some time - although it probably (IMO) wouldn't pass at FPC.--Peulle 22:52, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, as Poco a poco, and hard shadows and disturbing background--Lmbuga 23:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --W.carter 16:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

File:2017-07-02_Tour_de_France,_Etappe_2,_Neuss_(76)_(freddy2001).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Die zweite Etappe der Tour de France 2017 durch NeussFrançais : Tour de France 2017, étape 2 --Freddy2001 22:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Strong oppose Declined before. --Peulle 00:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good shot. But I would like to know the name of driver. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 08:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for the same reason as last time this was dicussed. "Out of focus, need to identify cyclist and accordingly categorised" --KTC 10:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment We can't just keep renominating images because we feel like it. This image was nominated and rejected already and has not undergone changes since; even the name of the cyclist is still missing! There's no reason to nominate it again.--Peulle 20:14, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. --Basotxerri 06:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Peulle; declined before after CR 1:3, nothing changed. --Milseburg 09:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I've had images not voted on, and therefor not promoted. I took the time to fix it, waited till I thought I had it right, uploaded it an renominated it. It was then promoted. Fixing your pictures is not too much to ask. Sixflashphoto 21:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --C messier 10:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

File:2017-07-28_Świnoujście,_Stawa_Młyny_(02)_(freddy2001).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Stawa Młyny, ŚwinoujściePolski: Stawa Młyny, Świnoujście --Freddy2001 22:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment You may need to correct the perspective --KPFC 00:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry KPFC, but I have not corrected the perspective intentionally. By using perspective correction you would see just an deformed windmill and no more the effect that it has to the visitor standing at the bottom. --Freddy2001 18:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
    Just tested it by myself and I see what you mean, so  Support -- KPFC 07:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs perspective correction. --Basotxerri (talk) 06:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Basotxerri, did you read the the previous paragraph? --Freddy2001 talk 13:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, my correct answer should have been "too distorted like this and if it cannot be fixed, IMO not a QI", sorry. --Basotxerri 15:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too distorted. I think you have made the photo too close to the mill. So there is no QI possible, I´m afraid. --Milseburg 09:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I was already at the very end of the jetty. Unfortunately, 11mm was the smallest focal length I could get.--Freddy2001 talk 13:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others.--Peulle 12:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unless the building actually lean likes that in real life, and other photos doesn't suggest that to be the case, then it's simply too distorted. If you were actually closer in and looking up (e.g.), that'll be different but that's clearly not what you were going for. -- KTC 07:49, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --C messier 10:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Hauptstraße_11_01_(Zirndorf).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Hauptstraße 11 Zirndorf --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 05:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Seriously deformed (see notes) --Michielverbeek 07:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I realize you don't agree with my comment, so let's hear some other opinions --Michielverbeek 14:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs perspective correction, oversharpened. --Basotxerri (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Basotxerri is absolutely right. I also think it's slightly tilted down to the left. I understand it's built on a slope but I still believe there is an uncorrected tilt. The description is also poor. More then 2 categories would also be nice. Sixflashphoto 21:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --C messier 10:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

File:St Matthew's Church A Grade II* in Bwcle - Buckley, Flintshire, Wales 41.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Victorian lamp by the main entrance to St Matthew's Church, Buckley, Flintshire.--Llywelyn2000 08:07, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment It needs more specific categories (a lamp) and it is tilted in ccw direction Poco a poco 10:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Tilt appears fixed and categorization improved-Good Quality -- Sixflashphoto 09:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are no new categories, Sixflashphoto. Why do you just ignore the comments of other reviewers and promote right away. It is not a building what a I see here, but rather a street lamp. --Poco a poco 22:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't feel I promoted right away. I looked at the description of the photo and your valid concerns. I then saw no one had commented in nearly a week and that in my opinion the concerns you had raised were addressed. I didn't expect for the lamp itself to be specifically categorized but perhaps we can both agree I should have. If in the future you would prefer I refrain from commenting on photos you have a concern with I won't be offended. Sixflashphoto 03:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
No worries, Sixflashphoto. You can surely comment in the future pictures I've commented, but I just ask you (and everybody) to wait up until we have a reaction from the author before any promotion. If the issue would be desirable but not a must for QI I'd just promote and ask for an improvement, but otherwise I do expect a reaction from the nominator/author and would appreciate if other reviewers can just hold on Poco a poco 18:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Some streetlight-related category or similar would be desirable. --Basotxerri 06:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good composition and good quality -- Spurzem 08:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Good quality, but I don't agree with overriding Poco's salient point, which is that there should be some kind of category for the lamp, which is the subject of the photo. -- Ikan Kekek 04:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Just added a lamp post category; thanks! Llywelyn2000 21:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support. -- Ikan Kekek 07:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support To me now, Poco a poco 18:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 10:11, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Wasserspeier an der Alten Universität Marburg 1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Gargoyles at Old University in Marburg --Hydro 19:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment perspective correction would be fine --Moroder 20:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment It is already corrected. --Hydro 21:08, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment The vertical lines are oblique --Moroder 18:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Horizontal and vertical lines can be straight only for frontal images. --Hydro 17:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Oppose The horizontal lines aren't the problem, but the vertical lines are. --MB-one 19:07, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I don't agree. Put it on CR --Moroder 04:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I see no reason to distort this image. For me it is good. -- Spurzem 20:32, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support The subject is well presented. Sufficient for QI in my eyes. --Milseburg (talk) 10:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose by MB-one and Moroder. Only the verticals of the right pillar are OK. So the image can be tilted ccw and vertically corrected. --PtrQs 22:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --W.carter 16:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Weilheim an der Teck. Pfarrhaus, Kirchgasse 1, 73235 (Nationales Denkmal) 02.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Weilheim an der Teck Pfarrhaus, Kirchgasse 1, 73235 (Upper part of National Monument). --Famberhorst 17:43, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment I really don´t know, if this could become a QI. The crop on the bottom is strange concerning that the lower part of the house is missing. It´s also seems that the image ist tilted. --Milseburg 14:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Info Thank you for your comment. The picture shows the upper part of the half-timbered house. for the bottom of the house were disturbing elements. I could apply perspective correction.--Famberhorst 15:44, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry I can´t promote this one. Feel free to send it to CR. --Milseburg 11:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
    more opinions please.--Famberhorst 16:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment If you fix the tilt and change the image description accordingly ("...upper part of..."), I could consider it a QI. --Basotxerri 08:34, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose--Peulle 10:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done. New version. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst 15:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

  •  Support OK for me now. --Basotxerri 15:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Milseburg.--Ermell 22:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --W.carter 16:03, 6 October 2017 (UTC)