Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 06 2019

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Bilderreihe_rund_um_St._Jakob_in_Defereggen_22082018_030.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Four relaxing cows on a meadow. --PantheraLeo1359531 13:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Filename doesn't meet the standards for QIC.--Chianti 16:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support I see that there are cows, even though it is not said in the file name. Who does not recognize it, can look in the picture description. -- Spurzem 20:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as mentioned before. --Milseburg 21:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Dateiname ist egal. Here isn't QFC (Quality Filename Canditades) --Ralf Roletschek 14:57, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  SupportPer Ralf.--Manfred Kuzel 05:17, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't understand this file name thing. The file name should be somehow meaningful (because describing roughly the location, it is), but does not need to describe every detail. Detailed descriptions belong in the section "Description". Image quality is good enough for QI. --Smial 09:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Per my comment above Poco a poco 10:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 01:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Bilderreihe_rund_um_St._Jakob_in_Defereggen_22082018_031.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Two relaxing cows on a field. --PantheraLeo1359531 13:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Nice and good quality. Incredible that we eat them. -- Spurzem 14:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Tecnically okay, but  Oppose for now. It needs a better categorization regarding the animals and also a more meaningful name, i think the other images of this "Bilderreihe" too. --Milseburg 14:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Filename doesn't meet the standards for QIC.--Chianti 16:01, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Und was hat der Filename mit der Bildqualität zu tun?--Manfred Kuzel 05:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC) Voice does not count until properly signed. --Milseburg 07:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Manfred, please read and accept the Image page requirements above Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized...--Milseburg 18:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Dateiname ist völlig unwichtig. --Ralf Roletschek 06:18, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Per my comment above Poco a poco 10:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 01:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Dode_roek._Locatie._Natuurterrein_De_Famberhorst._01-06-2019._(d.j.b)._03.jpg[edit]

  • @Charlesjsharp:  Comment Thank you for your comment on this photo. However, I do not agree with you. This is a unique photo and not another cut out photo! Too bad for you wrong assumption.--Famberhorst 15:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry Famberhorst. I've striked my oppose out. I still don't think we should have multiple QIs of the same static scene, but I can't see that it's forbidden by QI rules. It used to be! Charles (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your corrected opinion.--Famberhorst 05:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality -- George Chernilevsky 08:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think this composition works.--Peulle 08:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition isn´t working for me too. --Milseburg 09:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Nahaufnahme zeigt zusätzliche Details gegenüber den anderen Aufnahmen desselben Motivs. --Smial 10:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Basotxerri 17:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 01:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Cooking_on_a_fire_2019_G2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Outdoor cooking in boiling oil on a fire (2) -- George Chernilevsky 21:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Seven Pandas 22:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Question Is it Ok to nominate three virtually identical images? Charlesjsharp 07:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm sure you're right, but I read the rules George & Peulle and it's not covered as far as I can see - I thought it was. But the rules do say "Carefully select your best images to nominate" which surely implies you shouldn't submit to QI lots of nearly identical shots just to get more QIs approved. Are there other rules I've missed? For many images I submit to QIC I have five times as many almost identical shots - all QI standard! I wouldn't dream of uploading them all. What's the point in that? Charlesjsharp 20:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, it's OK, but if you nominate lots of very similar images, reviewers might not bother reviewing all of them.--Peulle 08:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 01:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Großglockner_Hochalpenstraße_21082018_417.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A mountain biosphere with trees and rubble. --PantheraLeo1359531 13:23, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Contrast rather low due to weather conditions, but it appears realistic. --Smial 12:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Not a QI for me untill without any changes of the contrast. --Ermell 07:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Ermell and I miss a more informative description (direction of viewing, some names of the mountains) --Milseburg 09:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Basotxerri 17:21, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 01:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Chalice,_Christchurch,_New_Zealand_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Chalice, Christchurch --Podzemnik 02:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion  SupportGood quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
    * Opposethe object is tilted to the left, so I don't think the composition is optimal --Nefronus 10:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Perhaps not optimal but good -- Spurzem 16:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support good so it is now. --Ralf Roletschek 19:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Per others. --Manfred Kuzel 06:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support per Spurzem. --Aristeas 19:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 01:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_de_San_Juan,_Helsinki,_Finlandia,_2012-08-14,_DD_21.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination St. John's Church, Helsinki, Finnland --Poco a poco 10:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Nice picture but is noisy and with lack of detail --Cvmontuy 16:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
    I've denoised it a bit, QI to me, please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 19:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me -- Spurzem 16:45, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me --Llez 07:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Per others. --Manfred Kuzel 06:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good. --Aristeas 19:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 01:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

File:2019-06-05_21-46-30_orage-Belfort.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Lightnings seen from Belfort (France). --ComputerHotline 20:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Chenspec 05:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • It need a perspective correction. --Tournasol7 06:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --大诺史 07:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. --Tournasol7 04:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support good without distortion --Ralf Roletschek 19:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Double contours by camera shake, overexposed, not really sharp. --Smial 01:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Smial. --Basotxerri 17:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but Smial is right (double contours). --Aristeas 19:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 01:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

File:Humenné_-_Humenský_zámok_(Kaštieľ_v_Humennom)_001.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Manor in Humenné, Slovakia --Milan Bališin 17:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 07:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose I disagree. The dark areas are too dark. In fact, if we look at the histogram, 36% of information lies in shadows and about 15% - in deep shadows. And it's not a night shot. --Stoxastikos 20:30, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose per Stoxastikos --GRDN711 12:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 01:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)