Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 02 2019

Consensual review edit

File:Reinsfeld_–_Salon_Schirra.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination House in Reinsfeld, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany. --Cayambe 18:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Good quality please add salon to somewhere in description, BTW I added salon in germany in cats. --Eatcha 19:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Random house, random street, random decline. Good quality though but this isn't impressive in any amount. So as long as "Deutscher Friseur im Hunsrück" isn't a national cultural heritage this won't get me. --Der Angemeldete 19:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support This is not a featured picture candidate but QIC and that picture is of good quality --Jakubhal 19:45, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, isn't quality of content also a quality criteria?Der Angemeldete 20:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment No, rather not. Please read guidelines. Your comment fit to featured candidates where your personal feeling towards the picture may be important. Also there were a lot of similar pictures of houses already promoted. Maybe, please check already promoted QI pages to see examples --Jakubhal 20:14, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I read the guidelines already, I know there are other pictures like this one and still it's objectively random. That's got nothing to do with what I feel about it and nothing to do with the featured images. I will rethink this in amount of the quality criteria but for now I won't take my vote back.Der Angemeldete 20:52, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality --Trougnouf 21:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality --Berthold Werner 07:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Indeed, Jakubhal is correct; QIC is primarily about technical quality, such as composition, light, compression and rendering, noise, focus/DoF, editing, categorization and so on. Whether the subject is particularly interesting is irrelevant. For FPC, however, the image must also have a "wow factor", meaning the actual subject plays a much more important role.--Peulle 08:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support as salon is in the disc and categories are fine. Eatcha 08:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Of course a QI. --Milseburg 13:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  Comment Please stop voting this up. You made youre point clear. I compared this one to similar pictures I found on Commons and on the Internet and for now, leaving out the aspect of a complete nonsense motive, I would say it`s representative in it's quality as a picture like that. However, I will stop voting on this site, because I would run the risk to decline pictures alone of my opinion on theire capability, which I consider nonetheless as a sign of quality and originality of content. The standalone voting for technical aspects might have its own rights too, but I, personally, wouldn't consider them worth an award, if they wouldn't be on an original motive. But one note on the category: The expression 'salon' in german has different meanings (a society, an intelectual circle, a meeting room in the houses of wealthy upper class back in the days, a room for the men to smoke in and so on). To identify it with a barber shop or a Haisdressing isn't a false translation but it wouldn't be used in germany like that, cause it's antiquated. So maybe Category:Hair dressing shops in Germany would be the better choice here.--Der Angemeldete 15:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - QI is not an award; it's simply a statement that a photo is of quality. It doesn't have to be great or inspiring. -- Ikan Kekek 04:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Votes must be signed in order to be valid.--Peulle 12:24, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the error. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Very good, I like it no problem with quality.-- Websterdead 06:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Total: 8 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 07:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

File:Trollius_asiaticus_03.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Trollius asiaticus in the Sukhor Mountains region in the Altai Mountains --Alexandr frolov 11:51, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Eatcha 14:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)*
  •   Oppose IMHO depth of field is to small --Berthold Werner 14:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose insufficient quality.--Fischer.H 08:00, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others - insufficient details. -- Ikan Kekek 22:52, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 07:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)