Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 15 2018

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Klagenfurt_Villacher_Vorstadt_Lendhafen_Elisabeth_Brücke_Pfeiler_03122018_5536.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Elisabeth Bridge at the Lend port (Lendhafen) in the borough Villacher Vorstadt, Klagenfurt, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 02:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Vengolis 03:02, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  OpposeToo much noise under the bridge. --Ermell 07:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Ermell: You saw what I overlooked. I reduced the noise under the bridge as good as possible. --Johann Jaritz 03:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
     Support - I'm not sure where the greatest degree of focus is, but I think the photo is sharp enough, overall. -- Ikan Kekek 07:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Basotxerri 19:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Castle_of_Cheverny_15.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Castle of Cheverny, Loir-et-Cher, France. --Tournasol7 00:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeDefinite barrel distortion. --Peulle 11:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  CommentI disagree. This is 2 images marged into one. Please discuss. --Tournasol7 18:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment - From other photos, it's apparent that the chateau doesn't curve, as shown in this photo, so you have to clearly describe the distortion - what caused it and why you kept it - in order to pass QIC. Your catchall disclaimer isn't sufficient. I'm willing to vote for the photo with a clear disclaimer, but others might not. -- Ikan Kekek 08:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment But it is mentioned in the description... Tournasol7 15:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I still think it looks too far removed from reality.--Peulle 20:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • This is all I see: This image is a panorama consisting of 2 frames that were merged or stitched in Adobe Lightroom. As a result, this image necessarily underwent some form of digital manipulation. These manipulations may include blending, blurring, cloning, and color and perspective adjustments. As a result of these adjustments, the image content may be slightly different than reality at the points where multiple images were combined. This manipulation is often required due to lens, perspective, and parallax distortions. I don't think that's specific enough to make the point that the building looks very different from what you would see in person, or precisely how it looks different. -- Ikan Kekek 00:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 21:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

File:An_assisted_para_glider_about_to_land_in_Resithang_ground,_Sikkim.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination An assisted para glider about to land in Resithang ground, Sikkim--Subhrajyoti07 16:10, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Posterization on the parachute --Daniel Case 04:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment - ✓ Done. Pl check - Subhrajyoti07 16:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I think  Oppose but I'm not quite sure, so I'd like to bring this up for further discussion. My issue is the blur; the image was shot at 1/60 and I don't understand why. Would it not have been sharper with a faster shutter speed?--Peulle 11:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - Sharp enough, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 09:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Basotxerri 19:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

File:Gerhard_Spitzer_(MA_der_Volkshilfe_Wien)_HaJN_4822.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Gerhard Spitzer (MA der Volkshilfe Wien) HaJN 4822.jpg --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 10:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Cayambe 16:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The categorization must be better --Ermell 22:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Ermellː I just want to know, why category is an technical argument(Quality) of pictures, and why You start a discussion and not leave just a comment? (adding a helpfully cat, should be the goal I not expect). This is not a car, and there are many faults in types, too. I added "Volkshilfe.at" but wait for my sepcial friend to raise an admonitory finger, again. I was blocked three times for this nasty game and now we playing again this Tags-Game.--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 09:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I can answer some of this. 1) The Guidelines include the following text in the image page requirements: "Images should have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages." The reason for this is that QIC is not just a place to judge the quality of the image, but also their usefulness to the Commons project. Images without categories are less useful because they are difficult to find. 2) If you're wondering why this image is here in CR, it's done according to procedure. If an image has received a support vote, and another reviewer spots a problem, we don't simply make a comment and hope for an issue to be fixed, since the image will be promoted by the bot automatically if the creator/nominator does not act on the comment. The correct procedure is therefore to oppose and send the image to CR, where the oppose can be removed later when the problem has been rectified. Hope this helps you out. --Peulle 10:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I have read all of this GTC´s ("AGB´s") before, but looks like some here construct interpretions in female meaning of a full moon. I normally never give pictures a title like "Volkshilfe_Wien"ǃ ̽sic Again, where is a constructive "together" work in a positive way? The starting cat was and is enough (see others, like poco) and I´m one of these guys improve own work. A lot of them issues still not possible any more. And nobody protects fotographers from subversive admins. btw a lot of car´s sorted wrong (example was Mustang (1968?) and the old Volvo) Anyway, that´s imho not a qualitive argument --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 15:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 Question @Hans-Jürgen Neubert: to make out, what you really want to say, could you please clarify your phrase 'some here construct interpretions in female meaning of a full moon'? My knowledge of english(?) seems unsufficient to understand this. --PtrQs 01:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good quality, and unless I'm missing something, categories seem OK now. -- Ikan Kekek 09:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Basotxerri 19:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)