Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 21 2019

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Warszawa,_Marsz_Niepodległości_2011_47.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Independence March 2011. By User:CLI --Andrew J.Kurbiko 14:46, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good composition, but unfortunately too noisy (ISO1600). Also please add geo-location --Michielverbeek 15:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
    I disagree. For the ISO1600 setting, the noise is fully acceptable, and given the time of day and weather conditions, this setting was obviously needed to get a sharp picture of the moving ambulance. A very good documentary photo under the circumstances. Geolocalization is nice to have, but as far as I know no mandatory requirement for QI. --Smial 00:00, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I thought geolocation was necessary, but I don't see it among the QI criteria mentioned at the top of the page. That said, I think the file description is insufficient. Why are all those bricks and pipes in the street? Did some of the people demonstrating on the left throw them? Could the person in the ambulance have been injured by flying objects? What were the demonstrators demonstrating for or against? Not having any of that information limits its usefulness and is probably a good reason to vote against. Also, I understand if the moving ambulance is not sharply photographed, but why is so much of the rest of the picture so grainy? (That's a genuine question I'd be happy to read an answer for.) -- Ikan Kekek 07:14, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support this is a quality image. I'm not interested in whether the photo has a quality description. Here aren't the quality description candidates. --Ralf Roletschek 14:22, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good image. I don't need a more detailed description. -- Spurzem 08:08, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I'll say it's too grainy everywhere and has an inadequate description, describing only a location and saying nothing about what happened that day. -- Ikan Kekek 08:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 Comment I have no difficulty imagining why an ambulance with blue lights is driving down a street. I also think it is normal and almost inevitable to take pictures of a moving car in the dark with a high ISO. But nearly every day I can only be surprised about the evaluation criteria here. -- Spurzem 12:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 Comment It's a scene from Independence March 2011 in Warsaw. This is noted in description. There are also four helpful categories. --Smial 13:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 Comment - I take your point on the categories, but are bricks and pieces of piping always thrown into the street on Independence Day in Warsaw, or was there a special reason for tension and conflict that year? Guess what? I just did a https://duckduckgo.com/?q=independence+day+warsaw+2011+clashes&t=ffnt&ia=web web search on "independence day warsaw 2011 clashes". See what I found? Do we want everyone who views the photo to think about how to search for the news from that day, or should something be added to the file description? I think something should be added to the file description. And if the photographer isn't available to do it, one of us (maybe me) should do it. Once done, I'll cross out my opposing vote because this is then documentation of a historical event. -- Ikan Kekek 13:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Then please be so kind and complete the description. -- Spurzem 16:35, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
I'll insert something, but the photographer will know better what the politics of the pictured demonstrators is. That's something I can't and wouldn't try to guess. -- Ikan Kekek 20:31, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
That was not so easy and took a fair amount of time to get the "nowiki" code right in the quotes, which are properly cited. I don't think I can be expected to do this kind of work every time. It really is better if the photographer or nominator can provide this kind of important background when they nominate the photo. -- Ikan Kekek 20:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 23:08, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Weihnachtsbaracken_in_Sachsen_20191208_04.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Closed christmas cabins in Saxony. --PantheraLeo1359531 13:25, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality --Michielverbeek 20:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. The lights are too bright and have overexposed halos. Sorry! --Steindy 00:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support The lights like these are called hot spots for a reason: no matter what settings of the camera you try, it's impossible to prevent such hard flares from being overexposed. Halos do not disturb me either. Stoxastikos 18:24, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't find the lighting disturbing either. Rodhullandemu 13:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 23:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Avdat_260914_Roman_camp_10.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Roman army camp of Avdat, Israel. By User:Poliocretes --Tomer T 14:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --GRDN711 18:46, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dust spot, needs a perspective correction and just 3 MPx, why that? --Poco a poco 18:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Hello Poco: Dust spot was not obvious to me (please mark in note for photographer to correct). With this scene, perspective correction is a judgment call and I am not sure what you would correct to. I do agree with you on the image resolution. The camera is capable of 18.1 megapixels and I would encourage the photographer to upload a higher resolution version. --GRDN711 21:42, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I added a note for the dust spot and btw it was not my intention to overrule your pro, when I commented it it was not visible --Poco a poco 11:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Image perspective and resolution have been addressed. --GRDN711 20:15, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The perspective correction applied would have addressed a barrel distortion, no the vertical perspective issues. User:Poliocretes, is it possible to get the verticals vertical? --Poco a poco 08:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Confused by this back and forth process; sending to CR for further input and final decision.--Peulle 11:28, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I like the photo. Where's the distortion? -- Ikan Kekek 10:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I get it: Some of the verticals don't look vertical. But User:Poliocretes, are they in fact all vertical at this point? It's a couple of millennia since Roman times, and things could have shifted. -- Ikan Kekek 23:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support I cannot see any problem. Good quality. --Steindy 00:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - I like the photo, too. And I don't see why I should assume everything that looks like it was vertical 2,000 years ago is still vertical, nor that even if it is, this depiction is therefore bad. -- Ikan Kekek 10:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 23:07, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Saint-Léger-sur-Sarthe_-_église_20180930-02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Saint Leodegar church in Saint-Léger-sur-Sarthe. --Pymouss 18:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Seven Pandas 20:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Perspective correction needed. --Tournasol7 21:13, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support The perspective shows only minimal deviations. A correction would be unnatural for such a tall object. For me good quqality. --Steindy 14:49, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The windows should be vertical.--Ermell 07:56, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment I would like to see a corrected version of the image. The perspective correction would be quite small, but can improve the image and should not cause a lot of distortion. Greetings --Dirtsc 08:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks fine to me. Stoxastikos 18:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective correction needed, look at windows on the left and iron gate on the right. --Palauenc05 22:25, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Perspective slightly corrected. I won't do more. Pymouss 19:30, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support It's good now for me. -- Spurzem 08:11, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good quality, IMO, and quite a nice photo (albeit with a tight upper crop), with a peaceful rustic atmosphere. -- Ikan Kekek 10:12, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   -Seven Pandas 23:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)