Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 06 2023

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:20230129_FIS_Nordic_Combined_Triple_Seefeld_2023_Ryota_Yamamoto_850_6593.jpg[edit]

File:20230129_FIS_Nordic_Combined_Triple_Seefeld_2023_Laurent_Muhlethaler_850_6581.jpg[edit]

File:Havlickuv_Brod_2021_16.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Havlíčkův Brod Base Sculptures of Plague Column in Main Square --Scotch Mist 12:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Review
    Unfortunate crop. In the lower left parts of the image are missing (probably after horizontal alligning). The top of the sculpture is dropped. Portrait format would have been more favorable. --Zinnmann 14:28, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks for review - restored lower left part of image - crop of tall column was deliberate so as to focus on base sculptures and surround! --Scotch Mist 23:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
    Other views? --Scotch Mist 08:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please change the description, so that it describes what is on the image, not just the town where this image is from. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Robert Flogaus-Faust: Thank you for your view - description edited. --Scotch Mist 14:04, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
     Comment The Polish description should be improved as well. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
    ✓ Done @Robert Flogaus-Faust: Unsure of promotion significance of this detail but Polish description appended --Scotch Mist 18:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
  •  Question Why is this here with no votes? -- Ikan Kekek 23:14, 27 January 2023 (UTC) @Ikan Kekek: "If no-one evaluates this photo in a few days, it would be reasonable to move it to consensual review. -- Ikan Kekek 27 January 2023" --Scotch Mist 07:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  • OK. I think that a move here with no votes should be exceptional, though. -- Ikan Kekek 10:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment The general rule is in [1], which might be a bit difficult to find: "Please only send things to consensual review that have been reviewed as promoted/declined." --Robert Flogaus-Faust 13:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

File:Bunten Kronwicke (Securigera varia) Blüte-20200626-RM-173640.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Close-up of a red clover flower in a garden in Bamberg. Size ca 3 cm. --Ermell 09:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Review  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 13:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose for now; this is a great photo, but a photo of a misidentified plant. This is something from the Fabaceae, but clearly not Trifolium pratense, probably not even a Trifolium species. Sorry. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:34, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment Never mind Robert, you're right, this is not red clover. Grows wild in my garden but unfortunately I can not name it. I have changed it to undefined. Maybe someone knows exactly what kind of flower it is. Thanks for your review.--Ermell 13:43, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Argenberg 12:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose My best guess is that may be an asiatic lily in glorious decline at the end of season but I am not a botany expert. Reluctantly opposed because, while this is a good image, without meaningful identification and categorization, I am not sure how much QI value this image has in Commons. --GRDN711 19:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality - while 'GRDN711' has a valid point surely identification\catgeorization is a secondary issue that in all likelihood will be resolved, sooner or later for the benefit of all, with promotion, while in the meantime a 'good quality image' will be viewed by a larger audience generating further interest in resolving this 'puzzle' (Unidentified Fabaceae in Germany)? --Scotch Mist 08:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    This is an interesting and rather unusual opinion. So far, most voters have agreed that at least the genus must be identified. I do not know why you believe that someone will find the correct ID in the future. THere are few people who can do that. I doubt that this issue is fixable without more information, such as a habitus image and an image of the leaves and I know quite a lot of the wildflowers in Germany. If possibly fixable problems are irrelevant for your vote, then why bother about missing categories, dust spots or CAs, which could be fixable as well? Of course, I still prefer a reason why my opinion is considered irrelevant to being simply ignored as by User:Argenberg. By the way, the closest common German wildflower I can think of is Securigera varia. The almost white wings and the dark red tips of the keel might be o.k., but the form of the calyx teeth looks atypical for the species and the bright red of the standards is highly unusual for the species, which has usually pink or purplish standards. If this is Securigera varia, then the image should be probably declined because of unnatural colors. In addition, the inflorescences of the species are supposed to have inflorescences of 12 or more flowers according to Hegi's flora. So finding the correct ID might be a difficult task. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 16:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Flogaus-Faust and GRDN711. I've done some work trying to find useful categories for photos that have lacked categories since 2015 and earlier. It is unreasonable to assume that people will take care of the problem even years later. -- Ikan Kekek 19:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: Understand and respect your point of view but conversely IMHO those who are not even ‘amateur botanists’ should not be discouraged from taking photographs and nominating images for QI simply because they are not familiar with the huge number of established categories of flowers – in fact the more images of an “unidentified” flower promoted (in this instance under three separate categories) the more likely a definitive category may be found or, perhaps, created. --SM:!) (talk) 11:12, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
  • IMHO it is not too much to ask from a photographer to obtain an ID of a depicted organism. The photograph becomes much more useful with an ID. There are many sites, where you can get your images identified. E.g., German wildflowers can be identified either on an identification page of the German Wikipedia, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redaktion_Biologie/Bestimmung, or on one of the following German pages: https://pflanzenbestimmung.flora-germanica.de/viewforum.php?f=3 or https://nafoku.de/forum/. I don't know so much about pages in English language, but the Canadian page https://forums.botanicalgarden.ubc.ca/forums/plants-identification.38/ might be a forum where plants from all over the world may be identified. Some people even use mobile phone apps for identification, but this may be tricky. Unfortunately, in this case, identification might be impossible because the photograph does not show enough of the plant. I can just advise the author to take some additional photographs of the plants for identification when they are in bloom again. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)