Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 28 2017

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Credit_River_at_Forks_of_the_Credit_Provincial_Park.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Credit River at Forks of the Credit Provincial Park, Ontario --СССР 01:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lacking sharpness, especially in the left part it is blurred, and some chromatic aberrations are there too --A.Savin 15:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I tend to agree with A.Savin on this. -- Ikan Kekek 05:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 15:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Broken_ice_on_Holma_Millpond_5.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Broken ice on Holma Millpond, Lysekil, Sweden. --W.carter 21:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Composition isn't quite there for me, unfortunately. No clear subject as most of the frame is simply a uniform sheet of ice. Dark intrusion of near bank pulls the eye in one direction and blown reflection of the sun pulls it in the other. Sorry. Juliancolton 03:30, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Pic is now cropped to show just the subject which is the light on the ice in a minimalistic way. Is this better? It is polite to give the nominator a chance to correct such a simple thing as a crop. ;) --W.carter 10:47, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Please know that I didn't mean to be impolite. I considered that a crop might have addressed my concerns, and it was indeed a nice improvement, but I still feel find the composition to not be very compelling. I'm happy to be proven wrong, as it's still very pretty and tranquil as others have noted. Juliancolton 15:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • There are loads of QIs without compelling compositions. If we had to decline every one of them, QI would be a much smaller category - and this one is way more interesting than quite a lot of other pictures, anyway. If you find this very pretty and tranquil and it's up to QI technical standards, do you really think it's appropriate for you to oppose a promotion? -- Ikan Kekek 05:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The image guidelines define compositional as well as technical standards to be met for QI status. If there are many QIs with poor compositions then perhaps at least some of them shouldn't be QIs at all. It's fine to disagree with my judgement. That's why we have consensual review. Just don't insist that I've been impolite or inappropriate etc etc... Juliancolton 15:11, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I didn't insist; I asked you a question - perhaps sharply, but with room for a reply such as you gave. In practice, I find that compositional standards aren't very high at QIC, merely what's sufficient to focus on the subject of the photo with decent clarity and without tremendous distraction. Maybe that's worth discussing on the talk page. -- Ikan Kekek 06:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Guys, let's not blow this out of proportions. I should have used a better way of expressing myself at the beginning, perhaps "more polite" or "better" or whatever might have been more appropriate. I don't consider Julian impolite at all and he surely has full rights to his opinion. I read the initial oppose as being fixable by a crop, I didn't realize Julians objection went deeper than I though. My bad. --W.carter 11:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good, interesting photo. -- Ikan Kekek 05:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support for me pretty picture.--Famberhorst 16:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Subtle shades of a golden winter afternoon. Daniel Case 17:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 16:13, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Charleville-Mézières_--_2017_--_4803.jpg

[edit]

  •  Oppose Close call for me; the house seems OK, but the sky gives you problems. The chimney is distorted too, not sure if that can be rescued. I'd recommend reshooting on a day with better weather, and experimenting with distances to avoid the distortion.--Peulle 10:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  I withdraw my nomination Conclusion: Not good enough. Thank you for your reviews. --XRay 09:59, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --W.carter 10:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]