Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 01 2015

Consensual review edit

File:Jürgen_Treyz_Cara_FaN_2013_618.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Jürgen Treyz of the german/irish band Cara, appearance at the festival "Folk am Neckar" 2013 in Mosbach-Neckarelz, Germany --Rs-foto 22:59, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline   Comment Please remove CAs and zombie pixels. --C messier 17:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not sure about the composition - glasses are problematic IMO. Mattbuck 18:51, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support What's wrong with the glasses? --Palauenc05 22:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Zombie pixels/CA not fixed. As for what's wrong with the glasses they're just the wrong angle for me that they half obscure the eye. Mattbuck 22:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Steindy 23:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 17:56, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Erywań,_Armeńska_Akademia_Nauk_(02).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Armenian National Academy of Sciences. 24 Marshal Baghramyan Avenue. Yerevan, Armenia. --Halavar 09:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose The wires, while unavoidable, prevent this being QI. --Mattbuck 19:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
      Support The picture is GQ despite the wires. --Palauenc05 18:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support The wires are the reality, I don't understand any issues here. --Christian Ferrer 05:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Christian got a point about the fact, that a photographer has all the right to depict the real world. By that, wires cannot prevent QI status a priori. However, sometimes wires are destroying the composition, especially when they are overlaying the main motif in an intrusive way. IMHO, in the above image, the wires are a compositional issue, as tjhey affect one third of the photo . --Cccefalon 12:35, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support I don't see a way to compose this picture without the wires and therefore Christian is correct. GQ Bsmalley 15:28, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
    Christian Ferrer, Bsmalley - I don't believe extenuating circumstances are relevant to QI. Some things will never be QI - like trying to photograph a moving cat in a pitch black coal cellar. It doesn't matter to me that the photographer has done nothing wrong here, that reality is at fault, the wires ruin the photo. Part of technical quality is choosing a good composition, and if that's just not at all possible it's unfortunate but not really relevant to the quality of the photo they take. Mattbuck 12:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support I can not find severe technical issues. The image composition is not completely messed, there are just some inevitable wires. They belong to the scene like traffic signs. Small composition issues like these should not be the only reason for declining. -- Smial 13:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Wires. It's a good picture, but it's not QI to me. sorry, in spanish: Se puede tomar la foto desde más cerca, sin ser captados los cables. La calidad de los detalles podría ser mejor. No veo motivo para considerar alta calidad.--Lmbuga 23:45, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Terrible quality: overall noise and lack of detail, too tight crop. I just don't understand the support votes. Alvesgaspar 22:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Steindy 23:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 09:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)