Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 30 2018

Consensual review edit

File:2017-11-24 (105) Fagus sylvatica (common beech) erected by the energy of the sun at Grüntalkogel, Lower Austria.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Trees erected by the energy of the sun at Grüntalkogel. --GT1976 10:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 11:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It is an intersting composition, but IMO unfortunately not sharp enough for Q1. GT1976 has got enough time to install the camera perfect, because a tree does not run away --Michielverbeek 11:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too unsharp. --Basotxerri 07:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 11:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --PumpkinSky 11:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Kalachand_Temple,_Supur_-_DSC_3752.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Kalachand Temple, Supur, Khatra Sub-division, Bankura district, West Bengal --Bodhisattwa 13:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality, but could you please add the geocode? --Palauenc05 19:04, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I switch to   Neutral until the image is geocoded. --Palauenc05 08:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support good quality, geocoding is no requirement for QI --Stepro 05:09, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment The guidelines demand that images should "... have an accurate description on the file page". For a historical building like this one, the geocode should be added IMO. --Palauenc05 08:36, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --PumpkinSky 11:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Knob-billed Duck female in Lakhota LakeDSCN1284 1.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Comb Duck female in Lakhota Lake--Sumita Roy Dutta 09:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. Noise, details missing. The camera does not work for photographs like this. --XRay 13:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Thanks for your review. For your kind information many images of birds of this bridge camera are quality images. I need second review in this.Pls. Sumita Roy Dutta 14:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support OK for QI PumpkinSky 21:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose Could be ok if so much water was worth something, but here I just need a crop unfortunately -- Basile Morin 04:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
    •   Comment@Basile Morin: cropped as per your suggestion, pls see
  • This crop is still too large in my opinion. I would cut more in the bottom. Unfortunately the low resolution of the file doesn't give that much freedom, since we're already too close to the limit of 2 Mpix for a QI, sorry. Nice picture, though -- Basile Morin 04:38, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 11:22, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --PumpkinSky 11:33, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Tguma and Bruschghorn as seen from Tguma north zw.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Mountain trip from Sarner Alp (1853 meter) via Präzer Höhi (2119 meter) to Tguma (2163 meter). descend to Berggasthaus Parsiras. View to Tguma and Bruschghorn from north of Tguma. There is a lot of rain coming.
    --Famberhorst 17:55, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --XRay 18:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, the image is OK but this same ID is already a QI as the colour version and thus cannot be nominated (derivative work). --Basotxerri 16:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  • IMO a colour and a black-and-white version can be nominated. It's not a problem and does not contradict the guidelines. And it is not necessary that both are QI ... --XRay 05:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Still a subjective opionion, and a very own usage here at WC. - Könnten sich die Herren der "Qualität", hier mal offiziell einig werden? (erst intern) Mir geht es bei einem digitalem b/w um die Umsetzung, was hier untergeht. Dies würde das "gleiche" raw-file benötigen, sonst wird ein Vergleich unobjektiv. (Film sieht Rot-Farben anders, Doc-No kann ich auch manuell ändern, notfalls ist es eine Belichtungsreihe.)Für mich wäre ein Hinweis auf die andere Version als Bedingung notwendig. Was hier passiert ist einfach nicht objektiv, im wahrsten Sinn der Worte. Darf ich mal an "File:Rotten pumpkins in cloister garden Abenberg.jpg" erinnnern?? und wer hat am härtesten in´s "Horn" geblasen? PumpkinSky, der selber das zig-mal nutzte und seine Argumente wie ein Blatt im Wind ändert. Setzt bitte Regeln fest und haltet euch für die "Alt-Kadar" auch daran oder seit mehr neutral mit einer wohlwollenden Prüfung, wenn die Gestaltung ersichtlich ist. --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 19:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose If it's a derivative version of the same file, they should count as the same file and only one of them can be promoted. The reason being to avoid flooding of QIC with dozens of identical images.--Peulle 09:26, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • A derivate version can be better or not. A black-and-white photographs needs another development. And yes, it is the same base file, but it's not identical. It is possible to develop nearly identical derivates, for example with different aspect ratio. For these image I can follow your arguments, but not for a colour and black-and-white version. --XRay 10:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support There is nothing explicit in the QI guidelines about this. IMHO if the file is significantly different, as here where one is color and one B&W, it's okay. PumpkinSky 17:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment In similar occasions some of my nominations were rejected under this argument. @Peulle, XRay, and Poco a poco: Isn't there any explicit text about it in the guidelines? If not, under what circumstances is a multiple nomination acceptable and when isn't it? Shouldn't be this written down? Sorry, this is quite confusing. --Basotxerri 17:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   CommentSomething's gone wrong again, and I still wait for a answer about your examples of truth.. --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 18:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, what you say sounds like if I was lying. But you can see the positive side: if the general judgement here is in favour, you could nominate your pumpkin image again. --Basotxerri 19:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Manno, Baso! Nimm´das doch nicht persönlich, es ging ja auch an PumpkinSky. Werdet euch einfach intern einig. Was sollt ihr sonst auch machen, wenn man es Ernst nehmen soll? Halber QI oder Hinweis auf andere Version? (Letzters finde ich besser) Warum soll ich das neu einstellen? Mir war das damals neu, total neu, ich wurde nur wieder "weggebissen". Ich kann mir kaum vorstellen, das alte QI´s gestrichen werden und da reden wir von hunderten. Es braucht da eine klare Vorgabe, zunmindest für die Zukunft. B/W sind hier eh die Exoten und verschiedene Techniken gehen komplett unter. Ich mache kein b/w mit einem click, ich belichte das sogar anders (meist visuell im Vorfeld, bevor ich den Auslöser drücke) nur gibt es keinen digitalen b/w-Sensor! Und das fällt hier unter den Tisch. Unter Objektivität verlange ich das alle user gleich behandelt werden (ich habe mich schon selber negiert, da ich im Quadro-Prozess jpeg-bugs gefunden habe) ich mache dennoch keine Wunschentwicklung, bin aber Kritik-offen Keep the Light!--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 19:38, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • OK, OK, mir geht es darum, dass das Thema geklärt wird. Es geht scheinbar nur implizit aus den Richtlinien hervor, das kann dann jeder anders auslegen. Aber warum sollte B&W gehen und ein z. B. Crop nicht? Ich würde mir wünschen, wir entscheiden dass und ändern die Richtlinien entsprechend. --Basotxerri 21:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't find any hint in the Guidelines. Black-and-white and colour are IMO completely different developments. --XRay 11:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Hier wäre wirklich eine extra Diskussion notwendig, die sogar erstmal intern. PumpkinSky hat die Einträge zu Negative with ID: 9596E102E485A1F5A17C04C60FB84E0A auf seiner Diskussionsseite gelöscht, oder ich finde sie nicht mehr. Und das hinterlässt halt einen sehr eigentümlichen Eindruck. Ich wäre persönlich gegen die Regel, da sonst der Vergleich nicht mehr möglich ist. Außerdem wäre es technisch zwar mit einem skript machbar und wäre ja auch einfach indem der QI gegeben wird, aber im Zähler sich nicht doppelt addiert. Bei Crops identisches Vorgehen, auch hier will ich manchmal sehen wie die Grundlage war, siehe Quadrate°!° --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 09:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Come on, guys. We've had this discussion several times in the past years, either a derivative work or the original can be QI, otherwise I can just crop here a bit, there a bit and fabricate 20 QIs out of one frame. Definitely not okay, will check the guidelines, there should be something somewhere --Poco a poco 14:31, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @PumpkinSky: The rules are to wait 48 hours after the last entry, you were jumping the gun a bit.--Peulle 16:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 18:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Yavamajhakiya_Jataka_-_Medallion_-_2nd_Century_BCE_-_Red_Sand_Stone_-_Bharhut_Stupa_Railing_Pillar_-_Madhya_Pradesh_-_Indian_Museum_-_Kolkata_2012-11-16_1836_Cropped.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Photographed at the Bharhut Gallery of Indian Museum, Kolkata. By User:Gangulybiswarup --Bodhisattwa 16:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too soft, could you apply some sharpening, not sure whether it will make it, but it is worth a try --Poco a poco 20:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Basile Morin 13:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Basile, I don't understand why you go for a direct promote. As already said, IMHO it is not a QI as it's too sharp. Why that hurry to promote? --Poco a poco 18:24, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Sorry, it was still "review needed" when I voted. There was 3 similar pieces together and I started to promote another one (slightly better), then this one without seeing someone had already left a comment (it was not in yellow). Also looking at it twice, and considering the low resolution, I have to agree with Poco it's not terribly sharp (thus I stroke my support, sorry). Beautiful piece of art, though -- Basile Morin 04:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough for an easy composition --Michielverbeek 07:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco. -- Ikan Kekek 11:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --PumpkinSky 11:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

File:JBL_Flip_3_bluetooth_speaker_(DSCF2653).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination JBL Flip 3 bluetooth speaker (DSCF2653) --Trougnouf 21:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support OK for me. --Basotxerri 21:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree This is never a good still life. Bad Light, WA and the shadows are a pity. Ebay-Quality, not more sorry. --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 15:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment What's WA? --Trougnouf 16:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Probably "WA" equals "Weißabgleich" equals "white balance" equals "WB" ;-) --Smial 09:25, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
Oki, my fault, mea culpa, not Wide Angle, i wanna exrpess balance of colours. OMG this is just a rally bad pic, any sentence (one word is enough) is only one, too much, sry. Product Stills have clear rules. Keep it neutral, focus the object! QI rules have some missing points. Creativity, Light leading, focusing (bcs not clear to measure it). If this pic get´s QI, Commons loose any external respect. *Es zieht mir dabei echt die Socken aus* --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 19:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Quality high enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 07:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support per Michiel. Its not being IMO a great composition doesn't give me the right to oppose, even if I wanted to (which I don't), because it's not a terrible composition, either. QIs don't have to be great compositions, merely adequate. -- Ikan Kekek 11:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --PumpkinSky 11:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Tomb_of_Queen_Begum_Hazrat_Mahal_of_Avadh-4155.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Tomb of Queen Begum Hazrat Mahal of Avadh in Kathmandu --Bijay chaurasia 18:31, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   SupportGood quality. PumpkinSky 20:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but the image needs a perspective correction and is a bit oversharpened. IMO fixable, though. --Basotxerri 20:56, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, per Baso --Michielverbeek 07:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Basotxerri -- Basile Morin 03:43, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   ----PumpkinSky 12:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

File:Door of the Residence Dadon.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Door of the Residence Dadon, Conques, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 00:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline Why are the stone arches cropped out? PumpkinSky 00:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
    The street is very narrow, you can not go back... Tournasol7 00:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC) And you used an 18mm lens. I invite other opinions on this one. PumpkinSky 00:13, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Weak oppose I see the problem and understand the reasons, however the result isn't 100% convincing to me. --Basotxerri 16:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment More votes? Tournasol7 12:56, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Sorry, I agree with Basotxerri. -- Ikan Kekek 11:33, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --PumpkinSky 11:30, 29 January 2018 (UTC)