Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 26 2019

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Raiyani_Muharramah-Gadis_suku_dani_yang_menggunakan_sali_DSC_7333.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Girls from Dani tribe, Papua. --Rachmat04 07:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion Some parts of the umbrella look overexposed to me, but I don't think that matters (some other people might disagree). However, you need more categories, as this is a picture of girls during rain with an umbrella, and there also might be a relevant category for the type of dwelling (or other building) in the background. -- Ikan Kekek 08:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Chenspec 18:27, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
     Oppose due to the lack of sufficient categories, as mentioned above. Chenspec, you once again totally disregard what another user has said. It would be one thing if you ever provided arguments for why you disagree, but all I've been seeing you do is ignore others' criticisms and just write "Good quality". Why do you think the one category given for this photo is sufficient? -- Ikan Kekek 21:02, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
     Support here is no quality categorisation candidates. Picture is QI. --Ralf Roletschek 22:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Ralf Roletschek, I know you don't believe in categories and don't really care whether it's hard to find photographs here in a search. I hope others don't abet you in this jury nullification this time. -- Ikan Kekek 00:57, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsharp and grainy. Seven Pandas 23:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support because of the funny motif and the nice composition. --Palauenc05 10:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I'm not opposing it because of anything about the picture. You really think the single category is sufficient for inexperienced users to find this image? -- Ikan Kekek 10:47, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Actually I have no idea about a suitable one. Can you propose any? --Palauenc05 10:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment - As I posted above: "However, you need more categories, as this is a picture of girls during rain with an umbrella, and there also might be a relevant category for the type of dwelling (or other building) in the background." Clearly, the name of the ethnic group is insufficient. This is a photo of girls, so that's one category. They're wearing grass skirts, which is another one. It's a picture shot while it was raining, which might be another. And the plaid umbrella is another category. The building, if possible (I don't know what category to look for for that), should be another one. There might even be a category of photos of barefoot people. But I hope you're not volunteering me to add categories to all the otherwise good photos that don't have sufficient categories. Perhaps since you think we should promote this photo, you should take the effort to find and add the specific categories. Or would you rather ping Rachmat04, who has completely ignored or been unaware of this thread so far? -- Ikan Kekek 11:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment As you insist on further categories, as a helpful colleague you should at least give the nominator a useful hint. But sorry, categories such as "grass skirts under umbrella" or alike I can't take seriously. --Palauenc05 15:18, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment - You misread that, somehow. "Grass skirts" is one category; "umbrellas" is another. How did you get a mashup of the two, or are you gratuitously ridiculing me for no good reason? -- Ikan Kekek 19:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Question - Does it really fall to me to find and add proper categories, because others don't give a damn about upholding an important QI criterion? -- Ikan Kekek 06:48, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment - OK, I added all the categories I could, but I'm not dead sure Category:Ijuk roofs is right, or whether there's a better category for the building. But I'm utterly disgusted and think it's completely unfair to vote to promote a photo with totally inadequate categorization and effectively force the person who gives a damn to do work that should be done by the nominator. I can't be turned into the designated category-adder because people don't give a damn about categories. -- Ikan Kekek 06:58, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thanks, well done :-). What about your oppose? --Palauenc05 16:06, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I've removed it, but I'd like to know whether Category:Ijuk roofs is right, before I support. Rachmat04, please try to follow discussion on your photos. We all realize life can intervene, but try. -- Ikan Kekek 03:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice image and good quality -- Spurzem 20:08, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Weak support --Steindy 22:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support --GRDN711 03:31, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 15:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Coimbra_November_2012-4.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Baroque tower of the University of Coimbra, Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 18:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality, and nice plottwist: both people on the image are calling (maybe each other?) via telephone :) --PantheraLeo1359531 18:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Perspective correction needed. --Tournasol7 22:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support The perspective is excellent and corresponds to the human eye. It would only be unnaturally distorted by corrections. Good quality. --Steindy 00:14, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Steindy: really? In your eyes, do you have the impression that buildings collapse inside? Tournasol7 10:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Tower seems to be leaning, and not very sharp, anyway. Sorry. -- Ikan Kekek 06:47, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Kekek. --Palauenc05 09:56, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 15:20, 25 December 2019 (UTC)