Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 2006

Consensual reviewEdit

43. TKB - Fickowa Pokusa z Jeleśni 01.JPG
  • Nomination: Fickowa Pokusa band. The 43rd Beskidy Highlanders' Week of Culture. --Lestat 18:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Review moved to CR
  • I moved this image here as the subject(person) is identifiable and one criteria is that the image has appropriate copyright, I assume this to also include a release from the subject. I know if this is a public performance in Australia performers, and crew photos can be taken and released for use without gaining permissions first, but I have also seen discussion here about European contries where that isnt necessarily the case.
  • If someone can confrim the copyright is acceptable then I'm happy for it to be promoted Gnangarra 14:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • There was confirmation from local organizing cometee (president of TKB in Zywiec and director of scene)--WarX 17:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Support promotion - Alvesgaspar 08:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Result: promoted (2 support, 0 oppose)
2006-01-28 Bread canyon.jpg
  • Nomination Bread crust --Roger McLassus 08:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Decline We are too close to the trees to see the forest. I think that the macro-structure of the bread's crust would be better appreciated with a lesser amplification - Alvesgaspar 17:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I think the judgement is based on artistic criteria, only. IMO the image meets all Commons:Quality images guidelines, so it should be promoted. Apart from that, for me the point of the image is to work as a visual puzzle, not to show bread structure as clearly as possible. --Wikimol
  • The only beef I have with it would be the dark shadows in the canyon. I'd prefer a softer lighting, this looks a bit random to me. --Dschwen 11:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Result: not promoted (1 support, 2 oppose) - Alvesgaspar 11:20, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Skiptvet kirke nordøst.jpg
  • Nomination: My local church. Want to see if this is "enough" for QI. Jon Harald Søby 14:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Review Maybe it is if you upload a higher resolution image - Alvesgaspar 19:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Another difficult case. I really don't think guidelines should be blindly applied, after all they are only guidelines. Techical requirements are intended to help and support our judgement, not to substitute it. I support promotion inspite of resolution. - Alvesgaspar 08:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Decline QI standards where aimed at improving/identify the quality images available on Commons according to a set of guidelines. Were an image doesnt meet the guidelines in this case resolution there needs to be other compelling factors to promote the image, this one doesnt indicate any reasons Gnangarra 16:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • The following excerpt was taken from Wikipedia:What is a featured picture?. Why should the crireria for QI be more strict than for featured pictures?
A featured picture should:
[…]
Be of a high resolution. The picture should be of sufficiently high resolution to allow quality reproductions. While larger images are generally prefered, images should be at least 1000 pixels in resolution in width or height to be supported, unless they are of historical significance or animated. Information on image size can be found here.
Alvesgaspar 10:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  • QI is more specific in its source material in that it is for self published works, these images are in general going to be from a digital camera which all provided images greater than 1600 px on one dimension. Basic scanners are also capable of scanning images in resolutions large enough to meet the criteria. QI isnt asking for something that cant normally be provided, also remember if there are compelling reasons to set aside a specific criteria then the image can still be promoted. Gnangarra 10:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
A side issue maybe you like to start a discussion on the talk page to further explore possibilities. Gnangarra
  • I agree with Gnangarra. QI criteria should IMO be interpreted much more stricly than FP criteria. One point of QI is to promote creating and uploading quality images in full resolution. 1600x1200 is barely 2Mpx. From the other side - the "user side" - QI mark should be guaranty the image has enough resolution, is not too much noisy, etc... so you can use it not only as a 400x300 jpeg image on the web, but also in print, for example. --Wikimol 09:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I understand and accept the point, although I feel free to break the rules again whenever a good pretext comes up... I don't understand why the author of this picture didn't upload a better version yet. - Alvesgaspar 17:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


Result >> not promoted


Mammothhotsprings.jpeg
  • Nomination: Mammoth Hot Springs in Yellowstone National Park -- SOADLuver 17:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Review Very nice picture but poor resolution. I'm moving this image to Consensual Review to get other opinions -- Alvesgaspar 10:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Personnaly, I'm inclined to accept promotion - Alvesgaspar 20:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
  • IMHO I'd decline on resolution criteria, Qi is about improving quality of images including resolution this image doent have any other factors that would make a good case to challenge this criteria Gnangarra 03:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC).
  • As an image, I like it. However, as per Gnangarra, rules are rules. This image does not meet the 1600 pix minumum requirement, wherefore it should be declined. If the project starts to bend rules, I am affraid that we are soon on a very slippery slope (I would also like to see the upper left corner in bigger size). Hence, decline. Sorry. --Thermos 14:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  • yes I agree with above rules are rules SOADLuver 18:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Result >>> not promoted


Abracadabra Gothic Tour - Asgaard - Przemysław Olbryt 01.jpg
  • Nomination: Przemysław Olbryt from polish metal band Asgaard. --Lestat 22:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Review This is a hard one. As a photo, I like it. Quite simply, it is good. However, I am not too certain about the quality in technical sense, which I think QI is alla about. Perhaps, insufficent DOF. Might be a a candidate for consensual review. --Thermos 17:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Moving to consensul review to get other opinions. -- Alvesgaspar 11:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I like the photo myself and agree to promote to QI, inspite of obvious focusing problems. -- Alvesgaspar 12:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • agree with Alvesgaspar focusing problem obvious in this light. --Diligent 12:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


Result >>> promoted to QI
I struck out result as CR should permit a longer period(1 day) for responses, unless original nominator declines promotion Gnangarra 15:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I dont think the image is QI as the eyes are red(if it was colour), theres too much light across the face and focus problems Gnangarra 15:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course the eyes are weird, it is all part of the frightning (gothic?) look of the rocker! I'm not sure the face has too much light: look at his left hand. Also, sometimes we have to forgive little sins to let the essential be recognized...and promoted (it seems we need a new referee to decide this issue...) - Alvesgaspar 20:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Two things:
    1. This photo was made during concert, not in a studio, so better light is nearly impossible :)
    2. Guy on photo has special, diabolic contact lenses (look at different images)
  • --WarX 20:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Agree 100% with WarX I would not feel the same if this was in a studio ,but it's is during a concert and passes all of the QI criteria guidelines SOADLuver 21:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • theres no need for a "new referee" consensual review as about get a consensus while I still disagree that the image passes QI criteria, all others are of the opposite opinion, the eyes have been explained, its something that should be included in the image description. Gnangarra 23:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Result >>> promoted to QI


Bronto fire truck bucket gnangarra.jpg
  • Nomination WAFB appliance bucket...Gnangarra 14:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Decline With a person working on it: "yes" but this is empty. Diligent
  • I don't think it needs person working on it. As a technical illustration it's usable. --Wikimol 16:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • However, I think that a quality image should be a little more than "usable". In my opinion, they aim to illustrate positive examples of various parameters contributing to image quality: composition, colour, documental interest, etc. -- Alvesgaspar 17:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You'll see in the image below that the tower was empty, the person operating the lift was under instruction and that to climb the tower to take photos the person who would normally ride the lift had to escort me. under the subject of "useable" the majority of fire appliance images are of vehicles parked in station houses, those that are of appliances in use are from ground level. Gnangarra 23:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

result -- declined


Fire truck dna tower gnangarra.jpg
  • Nomination WAFB appliance training ..Gnangarra 14:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Decline Personally, I want more of tech/daily life pics but the truck is "cropped" on the bottom right. Diligent
  • The "cropped" section is a support leg its inclusion would have added spectators. additionally horizontal depth would reduce vertical detail and its a verticle subject. Gnangarra 23:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't really think this picture qualifies as a QI. The most obvious drawback is the composition which seems cluttered and confusing. For example, I can't figure out if those spiral stairs are inside or outside the truck... -- Alvesgaspar 22:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • obviously they are inside the truck the fire brigade carries them every where. never know when a duel spiral 96 step stair case maybe needed ;-) .Gnangarra 15:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

result -- decline


Bumblebee1.jpg
  • Nomination Bombus spec --Alvesgaspar 22:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Decline I am affraid that this image is far too small to be QI. As per the rules above, the minumum resolution should be 1600 px, which is much more than in this picture is. Sorry. --Thermos 17:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • You are certainly right if the guidelines are strictky applied. However it is common practice to crop macro pictures in order to enlarge the subject. Please note that many of the excellent photos of little animals in Commons:Featured pictures, and also on Wikipedia Featured pictures, have less than 1600 px. In the present case the original picture was cropped from 2560px x 1920py. Sorry, I certainly need a second opinion because I like the picture and this is an unsual posture catch of a bumblebee. -- Alvesgaspar 20:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • QI has previously promoted images where the size has been cropped but the resolution hasnt been altered. This image has too many over exposed surfaces and subject isnt sufficiently displayed to allow both size and exposure issues to be ihnored. Gnangarra 15:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, it is quite right that a significant part of the image is overexposed, but not the essential of the bee itself. I don’t know what you mean by “QI has previously promoted images where the size has been cropped but the resolution hasn’t been altered”. In my image, only the size has suffered from cropping, not the resolution. Please look at the size of these pictures, all of them featured images chosen at random: Image:Bumblebee closeup.jpg, Image:Emperor Gum Moth.jpg, Image:Ladybird.jpg, Image:Meadow Argus02.jpg, Image:Hornet-vespa.jpg, Image:Bees Collecting Pollen 2004-08-14.jpg, Image:Osmia rufa couple (aka).jpg, Image:Empis tesselata male (aka).jpg (just to mention a few) -- Alvesgaspar 21:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Result >>> not promoted



WA ecology centre bold pk gnangarra.jpg
  • Nomination West Australian Ecology centre.. Gnangarra 14:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Decline Ordinary snapshot with no special documental interest or technical quality. Sharpness is poor -- Alvesgaspar 15:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Quality Images (as contrasted to Featured Pictures) do not have to be exceptionaly interesting or have some special technical quality. As for topic... anything which may be useful for Wikimedia projects goes. Technical criteria are set by Commons:Quality image guidelines.
  • I'm still not sure wheter it should be promoted or not - as the in-camera processing of the file looks quite heavy (particluary the grass looks more like demosaic-sharpen-jpeg pattern than grass). --Wikimol 16:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

result - not promoted Gnangarra 23:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)



  • Nomination Main portal of Frombork Catherdral --Lestat 20:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Decline Overexposed parts. Pko 17:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


  • Maybe there are a few overexposed parts but it is unavoidable under these conditions (if you want the indoor parts to be visible). I don't think that is relevant to the overall good quality of the picture -- Alvesgaspar 14:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I see a small tilt right to left exagerated by the brickwork, verticles on the entrance are ok. This is a case of what the subject is since its the "portal" slight over exposure outside to gain interior detail is acceptable, though maybe cropping the foreground path which is the most noticable overexposed area could help. Gnangarra 15:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I corrected a bit tilt and contrasts: Image:Frombork - Katedra - Portal wejściowy edited.jpg Pko 10:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • For me this is definitely a QI -- Alvesgaspar 10:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I wouldn't oppose. Pko 07:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

>>>> Result: promoted to QI (Alvesgaspar 11:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC))


  • Nomination Way into the sea--Alvesgaspar 18:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Decline I've declined as it more just an ordinary family photo, Gnangarra 12:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • My review of this image at QI is a little brief in my reasonings and probably a poor choice of wording. As an artistic image I like the composition with the way the person appears to be approaching the path into the sea. I spent a long time pondering the image before relucantly declining the reason was to do with the purpose of media uploaded to Commons from this perspective the image was more a classical/ordinary famliy type image and from there I wondered how the image could be utilised, I even spent time over on en.wikipedia looking for an article to which it would enhance the page. The only conclusion was that it would be a wonderful cover to a book/record album etc this to didnt fit within the commons purposes. Gnangarra 12:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This is not a family photo. It is a snapshot of a completely unknown person. I was caught by an intense feeling that the woman was going to explore a path just opened in the sea. To reinforce the theme, I’ve cropped a little bit the original and adjusted the contrast. I wonder why there are so few photographs of ordinary people in Commons QI and FP… -- Alvesgaspar 13:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Way into the sea new.jpg
  • Good idea, but the sunlit parts of hat and legs are overexposed, sharpness is insufficient, and the shadow should not be cut. Roger McLassus 09:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Commons purpose is to serve as a media library for Wikimedia projects. Anything suitable for commercial image library is IMO suitable for Commons, so based on contents, I would support the image. Roger McLassus is right with the objections, but I think sharpness and scope of overexposed are are within QI limits. --Wikimol 08:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I have no problems with promoting the image, since Wikimol is of the opinion it is with Commons scope. Gnangarra 09:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your quick reaction and decision. In the meantime, I have followed Roger McLassus suggestions and improved the image a little. Please consider the new version I'm putting here. -- Alvesgaspar 10:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm happier with the "new" as it addresses some of Roger's concerns Gnangarra 12:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Result Promoted

Last modified on 9 June 2010, at 15:34