Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 27 2017

Consensual review edit

File:Swastika_Mukherjee_-_Kolkata_2015-10-10_5787.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Swastika Mukhopadhyay during the Apeejay Bangla Sahitya Utsab. By User:Gangulybiswarup --Bodhisattwa 15:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Too noisy, loss of details because of noise reduction, not a QI for me, sorry. --Basotxerri 16:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support. It is noisy indeed but nevertheless an excellent photo for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 16:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Much noise and half the face is unsharp, a big no vote from me.--Peulle 21:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 23:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Peulle --Sandro Halank 09:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 03:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Open_wing_position_of_Charaxes_bernardus_Fabricius,_1793_–_Tawny_Rajah_(2).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Open wing of Charaxes bernardus Fabricius, 1793 – Tawny Rajah. By User:Tamaghna Sengupta --Bodhisattwa 10:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality -- Spurzem 11:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Below 2 megapixels. --A.Savin 12:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Below 2 megapixels.--Peulle 14:36, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Spurzem, why are you attempting to promote images that are below the minimum size? In this case, it was completely obvious just by giving a cursory look at the dimensions; you didn't even have any reason to resort to a calculator. Please stop. -- Ikan Kekek 23:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I think he just oversaw it, I've already made the same mistake, we shouldn't worry about it. --Basotxerri 09:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 23:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

File:2017-02-24_Miriam_Kastlunger_by_Sandro_Halank.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Miriam Kastlunger beim Nationencup-Rennen der Frauen in Altenberg 2017 --Sandro Halank 22:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality -- Spurzem 23:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose Below 2 megapixels --A.Savin 00:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Yep, the minimum size is not optional. -- Ikan Kekek 00:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Under the limit. Spurzem must have missed it. --Peulle 12:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I hope you're right that he's just missing it, repeatedly, and not willfully ignoring it. -- Ikan Kekek 23:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 11:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

File:16-09-01-Rīgas_Starptautiskā_Lidosta-RR2_4568.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Beladung eines Airbus A320-200 der Lufthansa am Flugplatz RigaLatviešu: Rīgas Starptautiskā Lidosta --Ralf Roletschek 14:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Missing identification of the aircraft. --A.Savin 15:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I see no reason to decline. The image is O.K. for me. -- Spurzem 20:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Inadequate categorization, per A.Savin. -- Ikan Kekek 05:29, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done I know, maybe I shouldn't do so because Ralf should know about categorisation but on this rainy day I've got the two minutes to fix it. --Basotxerri 10:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Basotxerri 10:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine now. Thanks to Basotxerri.--Peulle 13:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 15:53, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Now fine. -- Ikan Kekek 03:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 03:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Colonna_di_San_Marco_e_San_Teodoro_piazzetta_San_Marco_Venezia.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination View of theColonna del Leone di San Marco and the Colonna di San Teodoro columns with the Biblioteca Marciana on the Piazzetta San Marco square in Venice --Moroder 07:55, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment The tops of the columns look distorted, especially the right one. I'm not sure that can be fixed but I'll give you a chance to have a look at it.--Peulle 08:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment That comes with the perspective correction. There is no way to do it differently.
  •   Done Thanks. I've tried a bit of an audacious operation. If you like I can reverse to a version without perspective correction. Cheers --Moroder 08:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I see what you did there - there is now a straight line stitching error in the middle of the image. Honestly, this is really hard; I think possibly unfixable and those colums really are important since they're the subject. That means   Oppose, but I would also really like to hear what other reviewers have to say about it. Going CR for more input from our fellows.--Peulle 10:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done Fixed the stitching error. Thanks for the hint --Moroder 12:46, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support IMHO, this image has good quality. As I was several times in Venice, I know how hard it is, to get some photos of the two columns without perspective distortion. And this picture is really good. -- Johann Jaritz 17:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me--Ermell 20:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 11:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

File:17-02-15-Lietadlá_Ministerstva_vnútra_slovenské_republiky-RR2_7932.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Lietadlá Ministerstva vnútra slovenské republiky --Ralf Roletschek 23:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Nice composition, subject sits in focus, nice lighting. Very acceptable grain. --Gorlingor 00:05, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Another crop of the same picture is already QI. --A.Savin 02:36, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - As I recall, when you declined a bunch of similar photos of a bird in India, it was clearly established in CR that similarity to other photos is not a usable criterion for declining a QI nomination. That being the case, this is an image of good quality, and therefore, I support. -- Ikan Kekek 02:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
This is not just a similar photo, this is same photo. --A.Savin 14:00, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Grain acceptable for these lighting conditions. As for multiple versions of images, the Guidelines separate between FP and QI: "Normally there should never be two featured pictures that are just different versions of the same image, (...) There is no restriction on the number of similar quality images (...)"--Peulle 07:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info this are different pictures, see EXIF (F8F0C93348793E571F97A10E98885FB2; 15. Feb. 2017, 17:41:10 / EE9565CFEF0A3FE4286AA3B25A86C823; 15. Feb. 2017, 17:41:09) In background branches left, window right are different - both photos have the full pixel number in width (4288) --Ralf Roletschek 07:36, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment So, both pictures were taken within 1 second, which means that serial shooting was used. For this kind of motif, I don't understand the real need of serial shooting; albeit I myself occasioinally use it for dynamic motives, e.g. this photo or this one were parts of serial shootings, each are best ones of their series of six, seven, eight,... (my camera can up to ten) shots taken within one second. With that said, serial shooting is indeed a good tool for many dynamic motives to choose the best managed shot. But when someone makes serial shooting of a building, a sculpture, a parking vehicle (like here), so that all photos are actually nothing but duplicates, and then uploads them all, and then wants them all to become QI, this may only have one sense: QI as self-purpose, just to push the QI count to have a babel on one's userpage with a claim like "This user has uploaded 37,421 Quality images on Commons". Anyone who supports such behaviour, apparently hasn't understood what QI/FP is for. One more reason for me to abandon any participation in QIC, just like I have abandoned participating on VIC years ago.. --A.Savin 00:03, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd also like to add that this photo is insufficiently categorized. This is definitely in contrary with Image guidelines. --A.Savin 00:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • The model of plane should be mentioned and categorized, if possible. But your other objection seems to amount to a proposal to change QI rules, based on previous and current discussion. If so, why don't you propose a clear rules change on the talk page? -- Ikan Kekek 04:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • I understand the arguments of A.Savin. I think we have to discuss this. Because this i withdraw at this point? --Ralf Roletschek 16:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 03:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Maserati_BW_2016-04-30_13-55-31.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Maserati 3500 GT Spyder --Berthold Werner 18:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Tilted CCW, could you correct it, please? --Basotxerri 19:05, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  Oppose  Not done after 8 days--Michielverbeek 08:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
  Done now it's done ;-) --Berthold Werner 18:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support OK now, thank you! --Basotxerri 16:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The persons in behind should not be there but the car is o.k.--Ermell 07:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support علاء 08:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support QI to me.--Sandro Halank 09:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Johann Jaritz 02:34, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral. The trade mark over the radiator grille is not sharp und the slips of paper behind the wipers are very disturbing for me. -- Spurzem 20:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 03:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)