Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 05 2018

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Huber_k_rho_function.svg

[edit]

  • Nomination Plot of the rho-function used for the robust Huber-k-estimator. --Xorx 08:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn Too simple to be a QI. --Peulle 09:07, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Simplicity is a quality criteria for illustrations. A good illustration contains not more information than needed to explain the principle. --Xorx 11:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
     Oppose I don't agree. Simplicity is a criterium for how useful a file is (and this one is certainly useful), but the quality criteria are different. I could create an image that shows the function of a straight line (y=mx+b), but as an image that would just be a straight line and too simple an image to be called a QI. Very useful, but not a QI. If you'd like more opinions on this, feel free to move this to consensual review for further discussion.--Peulle 09:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
     Comment I think, this could be a QI despite it's simplicity, because it's generally well done. However, the x axis label is not centered. Also some of the y axis label is not showing up in png renderings (not sure, if this is a Mediawiki issue or a SVG problem). --MB-one 10:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
     I withdraw my nomination I hereby redraw my nomination of this image, because I found a couple of SVG rendering problems that I had overseen before. Also Commons:Commons SVG Checker shows some problems. Therefore the image quality is not sufficient for a quality image. Nevertheless would I really like to continue the discussion about QI criteria for diagramms and graphics. --Xorx 21:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cane_colvert_-_jardin_botanique_de_Tours.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Anas platyrhynchos female, on ground, at jardin botanique de Tours --Tsaag Valren 14:35, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. --Peulle 15:21, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. Much much better than other bird pictures that have been recently accepted. --GerifalteDelSabana 00:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - Very close to the line, but I like the head and think that, though not pinpoint sharp throughout, it shows the duck's character or attitude the way a portrait should and is sharp enough. -- Ikan Kekek 04:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Ikan--Ermell 16:27, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment I must say I find it hard to believe that an image with this much chroma noise, artefacts and general lack of sharpness should be considered a QI in 2018. It looks like a mobile phone shot. I guess our standards are lower than I thought.--Peulle 11:36, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Peulle --Cvmontuy 11:52, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Basotxerri 08:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)