Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 17 2016

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Karl Langer von Edenberg (1865-1935), Nr. 108, halfstatue (bronze) in the Arkadenhof of the University of Vienna-2916.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Karl Langer von Edenberg (1865-1935) --Hubertl 18:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Too subtle IMHO, consider lifting shadows and/or increasing exposure. --Soloneying 23:05, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. This is black bronce and this composition is intentional. --Hubertl 04:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO OK. --XRay 06:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I am sure the composition is as intended, I was referring to the tonality. On my calibrated Eizo, this looks nice, but on most displays (including my Macbook Pro retina), it does not work quite as well. Also, please use "bronse" in English description. --Soloneying 07:16, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I think the tonality is sufficient (all of my screens Eizo, Acer, HP and Samsung got it), we should not downgrade the original images just to suit less technically advanced screens, you can use other versions for that. Also, if you are just commenting on something that you think is fixable, that is done in the nomination itself. No need to take it directly to "Discussion" for that. And it is spelled "bronze" in English. W.carter 08:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. A bit more DOF would have been nice. Yes, I know, this was intentional, but I would have chosen to stop down the aperture one or two stops, intentionally ;-) --Smial 11:24, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Famberhorst 18:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    • You need focus stacking, to get really more DOF in this case. F/16 ore smaller is not enough. But I must admit, that I was not prepared enough to made it. But thank you all for your comments and votings! --Hubertl 12:04, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 02:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Evangelische_Kirche_Hottenbach_Altar.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Altar Evangelische Kirche Hottenbach --Soloneying 11:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, this is not a QI for me. Unfortunate use of DOF, strong noise, CAs and perspective issues. And please state full EXIF data if possible. As to the composition, I could understand the use of DOF if that crystal metal thingy in front was the main subject. However, it doesn't appear neither in the image title nor in the description, so I must suppose it isn't. And if it was, I think it had been better to show it entirely, not only a part. --Basotxerri 15:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Thanks. Updated the image to address the technical issues. --Soloneying 18:24, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, the Main object is out of focus. --XRay 19:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Mostly per Basotxerri, if the altar is the main it is out of focus and if the artwork is the main it should not be cropped and it could also be sharper. An unfortunate composition, sorry. W.carter 09:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 05:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pillersdorfer_Kellergasse_-_Zellerndorf,_Lower_Austria-0320.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Winemaker alley with press houses and wine cellars, Pillersdorfer Straße In Zellerndorf, Lower Austria. By User:Kellergassen Niederösterreich 2016 --Hubertl 19:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Basotxerri 19:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think it would be better by cropping out the right side where another house begins. --MathieuMD 20:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm sorry, but MathieuMD is right. --Basotxerri 20:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good work, crop not necessary. Surroundings belong to objects. -- Smial 08:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 15:58, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 02:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

File:ЭВС1-07.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination The high-speed train EVS1-07 «Sapsan» on Moscow — Saint Petersburg railway line. By User:Sergey Korovkin 84 --Brateevsky 15:42, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Soloneying 15:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp. Additionally, the location of the photo is missing --A.Savin 16:58, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good composition, good colors and sufficient sharpness. Why should it not be QI? -- Spurzem 15:56, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support As per Spurzem --Albert Bergonzo 17:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Somewhat oversharpened and perhaps somewhat too strong denoising. Also small clipping highlights. But all in all good enough for QI. -- Smial 18:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support--Ralf Roletschek 12:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 02:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Muscicapa_striata_gwybedog_mannog.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Red list status. I took this photograph in Pentrefoelas, North Wales. By User:Alun Williams333 --Llywelyn2000 10:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Good composition but the tail and the beak not well focused. --Zcebeci 11:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable to me --Poco a poco 11:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Somewhat noisy and somewhat too low DOF, but good composition and lighting. Acceptable. -- Smial 21:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 02:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Collegiate_Church_of_St_Mary,_Warwick.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Collegiate Church of St Mary, Warwick --DeFacto 19:45, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Ugly and unnatural perspective correction. Not QI IMO, but others may review--Lmbuga 03:14, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Do not you can take the photo of front?--Lmbuga 03:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Info, @Lmbuga: I've uploaded a less unnatural perspective correction - please see what you think. The light was wrong the other sides when I was there! DeFacto (talk). 17:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support New version is better. Nice picture IMO. Thanks DeFacto--Lmbuga 19:41, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support As for Lmbuga. -- Smial 18:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 02:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

File:The confluence of the rivers Vltava and Labe near Melnik castle, Czech Republic.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination The confluence of the rivers Vltava and Labe near Melnik castle, Czech Republic --Ввласенко 15:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeSorry, blurred image and not good detail IMO--Lmbuga 03:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment It's dark (taken at 13:09)--Lmbuga 03:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
@Lmbuga: Opposing means decline! If you are not sure, please give a comment. If you don´t accept a decision of someone else, then send it to discuss. --Hubertl 08:19, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, (poor English) I forget to write "decline"--Lmbuga 12:06, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I can't see why this was taken at ISO 500. Noise reduction has unnecessarily suppressed details. --Basotxerri 15:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I declined this picture above as well. Don't know why you nominated it again while the discussion was ongoing down here. W.carter 21:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 02:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Restaurant_und_Freibad_Schongauer_Lido.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Restaurant und Freibad "Lido" am Nordufer der Lechstaustufe 6 --Karl432 18:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Sorry but not sharp enough. --Ermell 21:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree The Lens tends to make some bloom (or glow) at very high contrast edges, but at 100% view these are ineglible. We should not push QI requirements to utopian values. As can be seen at :File:Santuario de Las Lajas, Ipiales, Colombia, 2015-07-21, DD 03.JPG even much more expensive lenses are not completely free from such bloom. What next? --Smial 14:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Eemell. --A.Savin 07:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support For me it is sharp enough and QI -- Spurzem 15:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Ermell. --Basotxerri 21:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I agree with Smial. --Verum 20:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 02:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Maulavern_Kellergasse,_Zellerndorf-6305.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination: Winemaker alley with press houses and wine cellars, Maulavern In Zellerndorf, Lower Austria (Weinviertel). By Kellergassen Niederösterreich 2016 --Manfred Kuzel 13:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Review It's sharp, not noisy, but it's a pity that the building is in the shadow. A bit more space to the edges would have given a better composition, too. Weak  Support, IMO. --Basotxerri 15:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
     Oppose  Neutral Of course it is a pity. But with the shadow it is no QI for me. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 16:38, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Are back lighted shots now in general not QI? Are there any important parts, which are invisible? Are the dark, shadow parts noisy? Are there CA problems? Are the bright areas overexposed in any way?--Hubertl 05:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@Hubertl: Ich schrieb schon, dass es schade ist um das schöne Motiv mit dem sehr ansprechenden Hintergrund; aber der Hauptgegenstand liegt nun mal im Schatten, und das sieht nicht gut aus. Aber warum stimmst Du nicht mit „Pro“, wenn Du überzeugt bist, dass das kein Mangel ist? Gruß -- Spurzem 15:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
@Spurzem: Weil ich nicht für Bilder eine Bewertung abgeben darf, von denen ich zu einem Teil Urheber bin. Deshalb kann ich sie höchstens verteidigen. Schau dir den Projektaccount an. --Hubertl 17:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Vielleicht liege ich mit meiner Beurteilung ja wirklich falsch; deshalb jetzt „neutral“. Aber ehrlich gesagt: Mir gefällt der Schatten nicht. -- Spurzem 17:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

 Oppose Light, sorry--Lmbuga 04:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 02:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Silver-washed_fritillary_(Argynnis_paphia)_female_Valesina.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Silver-washed fritillary (Argynnis paphia) female Valesina, Bentey Wood, Hampshire --Charlesjsharp 20:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Not really sharp and under 1 MB. --Verum 21:16, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment Please @Verum: read the guidelines carefully. MB not the same as MP. This image has 2.6 MP. You can of course decline on sharpness grounds alone. Charlesjsharp 23:28, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support it has more than 2 MB. And it is sharp enough for QI --Hubertl 08:09, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Definitely not sharp enough for an image of such low resolution, IMO. I also think that with a camera able to take 20 mpxl images, we expect a bit more from QI images. --Peulle 11:04, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment As I am sure you know, it has nothing to do with the camera. This is a cropped image from a hand-held 400mm lens shot. Perhaps you are not familiar with photographing rare animals; you cannot always fill the frame. I could increase the resolution by leaving in lots of forest. It would satisfy your take on QI, but be useless in an online encyclopaedia. Charlesjsharp 11:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment In that case, I would suggest getting closer and using a macro lens instead. --Peulle 19:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment Wow! I never thought of that. Thanks. Charlesjsharp 21:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support because getting closer could be dangerous with wild animals--Moroder 05:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, When I first saw it I thought it was the killer butterfly, but that's just an urban moth. Charlesjsharp 08:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support: sharp enough for a QI. — TintoMeches, 22:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Peulle--Lmbuga 03:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Weak Pro, IMO. You were lucky it didn't bite you. --Basotxerri 15:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 06:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

File:Graffiti_clown_-_20150811_11h23_(11087).jpg

[edit]

File:Graffiti clown - 20150811 11h23 (11087).jpg

  • Nomination Graffiti of a clown in La Rochelle, France --Medium69 10:14, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Good quality. But I´m not sure, if FOP in France allows it. --Hubertl 11:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment Graffiti is often done without permission of the owner of the support, the author loses his rights. There are no worries about this case. --Medium69 21:44, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment The creator will NEVER lose his personal rights (Copyright) on his works. NEVER. Even when it´s "illegal" and not made on a permitted place! Actually, personal Copyrights never become illegal. They just exist. --Hubertl 05:36, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Ist diese Schmiererei ein Kunstwerk? --Ralf Roletschek 11:30, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Da ist Gestaltungswille eindeutig erkennbar. Über Geschmack läßt sich stets streiten. Ein Pfund Butter in einer Raumecke war auch mal ein Kunstwerk. -- Smial 12:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
        • geh´ bitte, Ralf, es ist sogar signiert! --Hubertl 08:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Hubertl, there is FOP in France, but only for noncommercial uses. The artist of this statue and his/her date of death should be stated, otherwise, this file will be deleted per COM:PRP. --Pokéfan95 08:15, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment There have been uploaded a series of similar images. Does this mean that they all have to be declined? Some of them have already been promoted... --Basotxerri 17:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment Actually: Yes. I sent this image to Deletion request to clear the status. And in fact, we have to accept national laws and restrictions. Even if we don´t like them. --Hubertl 06:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment This image should go to PR? Why have hunderts of graffitti images from France, we should clarify this issue and, in the case that we have to remove them, do that for all. Actually, when I saw the first images of Medium69 I double checked it and after seeing so many categories in France with graffitti I assumed (maybe wrongly) that they are tolerated Poco a poco 06:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
        • IMO, the main problem is, customary right will not (and never!) take place, even when we tolerate the wrong common practice here in this cases. It is the same with the pictures from the Disney resort. They are all (really all!) not allowed to publish it under a free licence. A lot of administrators have seen this, but nobody has responded. It needs just one mail from the Disney Corporation to delete all. Really all! And with maybe more problems for us. Because, if someone is using those images outside Wikimedia with the firm conviction, that everything which is written on Wikimedia Commons is correct, we can be sued. If you look at the comment of William above you can see, that he has no idea about legal matters. And of course, he will take it personal. But do we really want to bury our head in the sand??--Hubertl 07:16, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. No FoP in France. --XRay 05:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 06:14, 16 August 2016 (UTC)