Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 25 2016

Consensual review edit

File:Loussous-Débat_Maison_rurale_à_l'architecture_traditionnelle.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination traditional farm in Gers, France --Marianne Casamance 16:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Nice house and picture, but poor doof (f/6.3) and not sharp enough IMO (see bike or grass)--Lmbuga 16:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. I think the house is sharpe enough for QI --Verum 21:16, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too noisy --Michielverbeek 07:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 06:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Eiche in Welkers.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Natural monument near Fulda in Hesse --Verum 15:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 22:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose poor sharpness and   chromatic aberrations, no QI 4me --A.Savin 00:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Very unsharp. You might take your photos in RAW-extension and developed those ones in Lr and Ps --Michielverbeek 08:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose noisy, low sharpness, sensor dust spots on the sky. --Alchemist-hp 17:25, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 14:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Borneo_file-eared_frog_(Polypedates_otilophus).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Borneo file-eared frog (Polypedates otilophus), Sabah, Borneo --Charlesjsharp 10:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 10:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
    --Jacek Halicki 08:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree: A specific location category is missing. As an expert for Sabah, I would love to help, but even the file description is superficial in this contexte. One of the three possibilities should be taken into consideration: Name of the kampung (I see buildings on the maop), the area (Danum Valley Conservation Area?) or the Sungai should be taken as category --Cccefalon 11:00, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't understand @Cccefalon: @Jacek Halicki: @Hubertl: . I cannot find any requirement in the QI guidelines that a location category is needed and I have had hundreds of wildlife pictures promoted without using one. Where is the new requirement written please? As you are an expert on Sabah, you could have added one yourself from the geocoding. It is 100% obvious that the frog is in the Danum Valley Conservation Area so I don't know why you have inserted a question mark. It is also 100% evident that the photo was taken in the grounds of the Borneo Rainforest Lodge if you are interested in that level of detail. I can tell you which pond if you like. Charlesjsharp 08:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
    • The fact that you already uploaded hundreds of wilflife photos without location categories, does not make it better. No one is challenging your capabilities as wildlife photographer, but for proper use in WikiCommons (which is more than a private photo album), a specific search to the habitat of an animal must be possible via the categories. See also Commons:Categories#Categorization_tips. I opened this topic for your Sabah contributions, but I think you should use HotCat tool for the proper categorization of all your hundreds of wildlife photos in consequence. --Cccefalon 09:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
      • I have checked recent QI images for flora and fauna and most seem just to have the country as location country, so I have added Animals of Malaysia, which is not as detailed as you have demanded, but many other editors have recently approved QI candidates with only a country category (e.g. Ukraine). You seem to be on a zealous mission (however worthy) that is not shared by other editors. Charles (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
        • I cannot have my eyes everywhere. But I think, it is worth the trouble to raise issues from time to time to make the people aware of something. Putting an image to CR can be helpful, because the explanations here are read by many QIC participants. For Sabah - which has probably one of the most sophisticated category system of a State in a country - I can provide guidance for the best categorization, however, my target is, that experienced photographers can achieve that at their own. Converning your photos, it would have been helpful if the file description is already containing a more accurate location info (e.g. "Photo taken at Borneo Rainforest Lodge in Danum Valley Conservation Area, Sabah, Malaysia"). It is a good example to provide a bunch of different helpful categories, whereas it is already of high value to have identified the correct species - a task where I am not very competitive. --Cccefalon 12:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
        • "Animals of Malaysia" however is far too wide. There is a category "Frogs in Sabah". I will do a proper categorization for this photo and will expect, that you go over the other photos yourself. Ask me for advise, if necessary. I will have a close look to future nominations ;-) Cheers, --Cccefalon 12:36, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 06:22, 24 May 2016 (UTC)