Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 14 2015

Consensual review edit

File:Schönbrunn_vase_NE_Gloriette.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Stone vase in the gardens of Schönbrunn, NE of Gloriette. --Herzi Pinki 08:37, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn
  •   Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 08:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose Sorry, I disagree, the shadows are much too dark. Please check the monitor. Easy to fix! --Hubertl 08:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support QI for me, sorry, can´t see an advantage in brightning, IMO the vase looses it´s contour then --Isiwal (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Neutral Some areas are drowned in darkness, but small enough to accept them. Technically not a superior image, but ok. However, I find the description of the image inappropriate. The lady seems to be the main motif of the compo, reducing the meaning of the vase to a sheer requisite. By that, it is more a photo for the family album. Perhaps it should be named "Tourists in Schönbrunn"? --Cccefalon 14:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment the lady is de minimis. The vase is protected (as all of Schönbrunn) and it is the main object in my composition, it is set in context, which by no doubt is a touristical context. The composition follows the Rule of Thirds, also with the alley on the left side. I nominated the image as we all have been asked to nominate more images for QI to improve the rate of QI images by Austrian photographers. It is not important for me, whether this images gets promoted or not. It may be a bad photo for a vase, but it is definitely not the image of a lady. Sorry to bother you. About the dark areas I will have a look, but I'm still waiting for some technical explanation by Hubertl. The histogram on my monitor is ok. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are not bothering, Herzi. I know, that we might have different opinions about the compo, but I am fair enough, not to cast an oppose vote because of this. As I said, it is technically ok. Thanks for contributing your images! It's always a pleasure to see them. --Cccefalon 17:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly needs more technical explanation as I wrote already? Here and on your Discu. I don´t have that time to explain something, which I know for sure, that you certainly know what it means. Please don´t play one of your typical, wellknown games: "I don´t understand what you´ve said." --Hubertl 18:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help and understanding

  I withdraw my nomination --Herzi Pinki (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 07:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2015.07.07.-22-Mulde Eilenburg--Bruch-Weide.jpg edit

 

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 06:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2015.07.07.-21-Mulde Eilenburg--Bruch-Weide.jpg edit

 

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 06:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pilze_Nähe_der_Hexenstühle_Kastelruth_3.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Amanita battarae mushroom in Kastelruth. --Moroder 22:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support good quality --Christian Ferrer 14:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but the subject is much too small for this large picture. Too much space with other ordinary vegetation around it. Visibly details are not enough for me. Not QI IMO. --Hockei 15:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
    • The purpose is to show the mushroom in it's natural environment as you can read from the filename and the description. Nothing wrong with it!?. Why shouldn't that be QI?--Moroder 09:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry again. But I only can say what I think and feel when I view a picture. For me it's not more than a snapshot. I hope another opinion will appear here. --Hockei 16:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't be angry at me but I believe reviewers should think more and feel less, which means be more specific. Snapshot is not a good compliment ;-) cheers --Moroder 16:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
  Neutral Not angry.   After the felt twentieth time review I change my vote to neutral. I'm missing more pictures of this mushroom, especially one or two close ups or macros in various views in combination to this here. Your intention to show this mushroom with this standalone picture is not convincing. Therefore I used the expression "snapshot". I doubt the seriousness. It's just my opinion. Good or not good shall not be my problem anymore. --Hockei (talk) 11:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Nice picture. I find here very interesting information about the environment of this lonely mushroom. For instance, the fact it is alone is interesting by itself, IMO. Technicaly good.--Jebulon 19:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 19:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC)