Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 15 2015

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Lisboa January 2015-46a.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Monument to the Portuguese discoveries (silhouette), Lisboa, Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 12:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment I don't understand why you nominate the picture again. Nothing changed since last time. The picture may be nice from an artistic point of view but the light situation is still not sufficient for QI. Are you hoping for different reviewers this time? --Code 20:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • No, I'm hoping for a wiser attitude from the old ones. Alvesgaspar 16:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • So you think that we were just not wise enough to review your picture properly? Don't you think that this is a quite disrespectful attitude? --Code 08:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes and no. Everybody makes mistakes and correcting them adds to the respect the others have on us. Alvesgaspar 12:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • To say that declining your nomination was a mistake doesn't make me respect you more. I would respect you if you could accept that not every picture you nominate has to be a QI in the eyes of others. It probably doesn't bother you but it makes me very sad what you're doing here. --Code 17:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. as the unvailing nomination a few days ago. --Hubertl 14:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why and nobody seems to be able to explain. Thus sent to CR (again), Alvesgaspar 14:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Same reason as last time. Nothing changed. Re-nominating after a decline without changing anything is disrespectful in my eyes (and probably against the rules). --Code 07:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Let me quote the reason of last time: Sorry, bad light situation. Monument is too dark. Yes, it is too dark, as in most contre-jour photographs, many of them QI or FP. In some cases, including the present one, contrast is enhanced in order to obtain the desired effect (see original here) For me to respect a technical review it ought to be intelectually respectable, which is obviously not the case here. Alvesgaspar 08:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The description says "Monumento to the Portuguese Discoveries (Padrão dos Descobrimentos), Lisboa, Portugal.". Unfortunately I don't see any monument on this picture. I see blue areas and black areas. That's it. And I don't see which value the picture should have regarding the project scope. As I already said this picture may be nice from an artistic point of view. But that's not what we ask for in QI. Additionally I somehow don't really understand the last sentence of your last comment, but I hope you didn't want to call me stupid. --Code 09:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment You certainly do not represent the community when you state but that's not what we ask for in QI (bold added), especially knowing that there are several - probably hundreds of - silhouette and contre-jour quality images in Commons (please see here and here). As for not seing which value the picture should have regarding the project scope, that is certainly a limitation of your own eyes, probably based on a short-sighted idea of what the project scope really is. Alvesgaspar 14:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • First: I never said that I represented the community. Second: None of these pictures contains as little information as the one we're talking about in this case. Third: The fact that other (different) pictures were promoted doesn't give you any entitlement to have this one promoted, too. For me, this discussion is over at this point. This is getting too personal. I want no quarrel with you and I like most of your pictures. Let's see what the others think about your nomination. --Code 14:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As a normal picture, obviously this wouldn't be QI as the subject is too dark. As a silhouette as intended, this doesn't work for me either. It's kinda stuck in between being a silhouette and an under-exposed picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KTC (talk • contribs) 14:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support - As before, I think this is QI, the composition is clearly intentional. However I do think that renominating it so soon is bad form. Mattbuck 22:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Christian Ferrer 07:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose --Milseburg 12:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support as for mattbuck. -- Smial 10:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Subject is too dark --Shansov.net 21:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as my first vote--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 15:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Can't we take silhouette pictures now? --Kadellar 16:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    • We can. And silhouette pictures can be very nice and artistic. But QI Guidelines say: "the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed", so I assume that it's a specific requirement for QI. Probably it's not required for FP, maybe (didn't checked). --- [Tycho] talk 00:20, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
      •  Comment You’re right. A silhouette has to be dark, so this is still overexposed ;-) --Kreuzschnabel 17:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as others. Yann 20:22, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment -- Sorry guys, but the weakness of the reasons invoked for declining the picture as a QI is almost pathetic. Either no new technical arguments are presented (insufficiennt quality, as before and as others do not obvioulsy count) or they are contradictory and technically unreasonable (too dark, overexposed, poor value considering project scope, little information). Under whose authority is it stated that "contre-jour" photographs and silhouettes should be totally black or that artsy photos are not in project's scope? Apparently my alleged lack of respect for the first community decision is the real reason for declining. However - as I have explained above - I did not want to challenge the community but only to give the opportunity for correcting what I believed were hasty assessments. I see now that pride was probably the prevailing force here. Alvesgaspar 11:41, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 7 oppose → Declined   --KTC (talk) 01:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)