Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 04 2024

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Казахстан, Караойский заказник, сведа.jpg

[edit]

  • I don't understand the reason for decline this image without any question & chance for author or nominator to fix something. --Екатерина Борисова 16:55, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Sorry but it's firstly a responsibility of the nominator to ensure that the QI guidelines are fulfilled. Poco a poco 20:05, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I even don't understand what do you mean by "ld missing". I didn't find ld abbreviation in phototraphy terms and in QI guidelines and Google tells me that "ld missing" means some software problems which I don't undersrand either. --Екатерина Борисова 00:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
  • I mean the species of the plant --Poco a poco 06:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I oppose this image, even though I would usually support it. Quality looks good and the ID of the genus should be sufficient IMO. However, the wrong genus was picked. Salicornia is supposed to have articulate inflorescences, with three flowers in each section and the leaves should be reduced to scales. I can see a lot of succulent, but otherwise ordinary leaves and the flowers or fruits look very different from Salicornia species. I simply do not know enough about the area of origin to decide whether this could be a Suaeda species or something from a quite different genus. Sorry. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Robert, many thanks for informative and helpful comment. Me and Красный (who knows plants much more better than I) tried to improve the description and category, see his comment below. Please check now is this all correct. -- Екатерина Борисова 00:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
     Comment Sorry for overlooking this. Please check the Russian caption and the Russian description. I changed those and I am suporting the image now (see below). --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 10:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Robert, good picture but apparently wrong description and categorization. The best photo is useless when no one knows what it shows. --Plozessor 15:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
     Comment This is an obvious reason for comments, but not a reason to decline the photo at first take, because there is a chance to fix the problem. -- Екатерина Борисова 17:23, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
     Comment I understood that you don't know which plant it is, and since you didn't take the picture, you probably won't be able to identify it with enough certainty. --Plozessor 16:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I've changed category and description of a picture according to the Flora incognita, while Robert before suggested the same genus. Красный 17:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
     Comment Not a good idea IMO, AI tools are not 100 % accurate and some features required for identification might even be not visible in the image. --Plozessor 16:48, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
     Comment This may be a matter of correct location and what the AI was trained on. At least in Germany, if it is used on freshly taken smartphone photos, Flora incognita does really great and its suggestions for identification are very close to expert level. However, while it was trained on ca. 32,000 plant species, i.e. a lot more than just the German vascular plants, identification as Suaeda maritima in this area is unexpected. I found a recent Open Access publication about Suaeda species from the Aral-Balkhash region flora from a herbarium collection at Almaty, see https://doi.org/10.31489/2024BMG2/76-85. The authors mention fifteen species from the genus in the entire region, but Suaeda maritima is not one of them. Therefore, an ID as Category:Unidentified Suaeda (with analogous changes in the descriptions and the captions) would be acceptable identification IMO, considering the suggestion by Flora incognita, but clearly not an identification as Suaeda maritima. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:59, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. I also corrected the Russian caption and the respective description. I am reopening this because it was closed less than 48 hours after the last comment, which is not correct. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Procedural correction: The Consensual Review Rules say that it is 48 hours since the last "entry", which must be a vote, not a comment, otherwise a nominator or creator can indefinitely delay the decision by simply adding more comments. As your vote was cast after the decision was executed, and as your vote does not change the outcome of the vote anyway, I am setting the decision back to "decline", in accordance with the Guidelines. I will remind all interested parties that an image can always be re-nominated at another time if the reasons for the decline have been changed - i.e. in this case that the identification is correct.--Peulle 12:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I still do not understand why the last entry must be a vote, simply because someone could otherwise misuse this rule to delay the decision (which would not make much sense anyway). However, if you are right, then the term "entry" in the rule should be changed to "vote". This is something for the talk page. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 12:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)