Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 15 2017

Consensual review edit

File:Opel Olympia Rekord, Bj. 1955, Heck (2017-07-01 Sp).JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Opel Olympia Rekord built in 1955 at “Europa Klassik” in Andernach -- Spurzem 14:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose I accept in this kind of images that there are other cars in the background, but in this case a piece of the front is gone due to the yellow car (and the red one is not helping either), that should have been avoided, not a QI to me, sorry. --Poco a poco 15:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment. Here is not Featured Pictures. And I saw here promoted images with more disturbing "accessories". I ask to discuss. -- Spurzem 16:09, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   support Yes isn't the best condition i agree with Diego,but the subject is very clear --Livioandronico2013 20:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco. -- Ikan Kekek 08:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This may not be FPC so wow-factor is not required, but good composition is still a criteria. --cart-Talk 08:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@W.carter: "Good composition“, that' a word! How much promoted images of cars may I show with composition which are less good? -- Spurzem 10:41, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, too many distracting elements all around the main subject. --Smial 12:47, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
@Smial: Ich bin von den neuen Bewertungsmaßstäben überrascht. Denn bisher habe ich nicht erlebt, dass Du irgendwelche störenden Elemente in Fotos von Oldtimertreffen beanstandetest, zum Beispiel die zum Teil überbelichteten Schilder in den Windschutzscheiben der Autos, abgeschnittene Köpfe von Besuchern usw. Es ist schon bemerkenswert, wie schnell sich nun Leute zusammenfinden und sich auf ein bestimmtes Foto – ich will nicht sagen einen Bildautor – einschießen. Im Übrigen: Das wahrscheinlich routinemäßig dahergeschriebene „Sorry“ hättest Du ruhig weglassen können. -- Spurzem 13:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
This comment is highly disappointing and unjust. But ok, I'll reduce my participation from "only rare" to zero. --Smial 11:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Also per Poco; I realize it's a tight shot, but that's the difference between a QI and a photo anybody can do. I'm note sure if the corners can be cropped or cloned out?--Peulle 20:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you should create the marking The badest image we have ever seen exclusive for me. Isn't it a good idea? -- Spurzem (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  Comment It's not, and I'm beginning to grow tired of your aggressive attitude. Just because somebody disagrees with you about something, there's really no excuse for this behaviour. --Peulle 02:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Apart from an a bit unlucky position of the car there are technical problems; CAs: all off-centre pillars in the background; DoF: every part of the car more far away than the a-column lacks sharpness, - same as the trunk lid.
    I agree that there are a lot of QIs worse than this, but probably neither you nor me nor any other picky person had enough time to check them all  . Maybe a standard second review could minimize those slips, but that won't ease those cases, where photographers take critique personally. --PtrQs (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 12:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)