Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 25 2018

Consensual review edit

File:Würgau_Bergrennen2017_Sylva_Fury_0138.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Sylva Fury at the mountain race in Würgau 2017 --Ermell 07:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --GT1976 07:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
      Oppose OK. --GT1976 22:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Car and background very distorted; disturbing shadow. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 12:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The picture does not give any idea what the car looks like in reality. -- Spurzem 08:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Morph the cat? Geht für mich gar nicht. Gerade als QI mit einem mehr realistischem, als ästhetischen Anspruch, wir hatten das ja schon mit dem Traktor Reifen - ansonsten Nice Try.-) Ansonsten bin ich sicher kein seriöser Autofotograf, kommt bei mir immer Unsinn raus ː-D Für mich sind Autos da aber auch nur Objekte zum Objekt. --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 16:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Spurzem.--Peulle 09:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 21:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Altamura_BW_2016-10-15_15-20-42_2.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Italy, Altamura, Santa Maria Assunta cathedral --Berthold Werner 12:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Image has too small resolution and most of all sharpness is not so good. --Halavar 14:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support. Very good image of an impressive work of art. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 10:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I agree with Halavar. At this file size, I'd expect more sharpness. -- Ikan Kekek 05:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  Question Are we here in Super Featured Pictures Candidates or in QI? -- Spurzem 08:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
We're judging a small, unsharp photo in QI. If it were nominated to FP, it would be rejected by everyone out of hand for having bad crops as well as the other problems. Here, we consider whether it might have good enough photographic quality. -- Ikan Kekek 18:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose No way this is a QI according to 2016 standards. Maybe 1999 standards. In 2016, any smartphone can do this.--Peulle 10:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  Comment I can only wonder about many judgements, both about some positives and about negatives. Apparently QIC is on the way to where Wikipedia KEB went for a long time, that hardly anyone will present pictures. It does not help to say that we no longer have 1999 but 2016. Because not everyone can buy every year a new camera equipment for 10,000 euros or more, just to get a few pixels more for QI. -- Spurzem 12:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  Comment When one person disagrees with you, perhaps you are not swayed. When three people do, perhaps you should start to think about whether it is you who are in the wrong. The Guidelines clearly say that standards increase with time, and while we can't expect professional quality, we shall certainly have to raise our standards as time passes. --Peulle 14:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Obviously meanwhile you expect much more than a high professional quality. -- Spurzem 17:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Rubbish.--Peulle 20:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all, especially Lothar, for the comments. It seems there is no majority for a pro. --Berthold Werner 06:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 21:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

File:EstacionCamet-0014-3.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Building in Camet train station, railway Roca --Ezarate 20:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. --Bijay chaurasia 17:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review but can you specify the issues? --Ezarate 20:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Tilted, might perhaps need a perspective correction, too, CAs at least on the trees. I would crop a bit of the sky, too. --Basotxerri 16:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 21:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)