Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 17 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Close_wing_nectaring_of_Female_Tirumala_limniace_Cramer,_1775_–_Blue_Tiger_on_Cosmos_sulphureus_WLB_IMG_4581.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Close wing position of Female Tirumala limniace Cramer, 1775 – Blue Tiger. (by Souvick Mukherjee) --Atudu 06:35, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 07:09, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
    it is, but too tightly cropped --Charlesjsharp 12:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Charles, if you oppose, please indicate that in a vote. For my part, I think that with a little more room on the left side, this might be a viable FP nominee, but it's a very high-quality, artistic photo, so a narrow crop on the left doesn't make it not a QI to me. -- Ikan Kekek 06:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment I didn't oppose, just made a comment. It seems strange that the system then sends the image to CR. Charlesjsharp 09:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I hope it's not doing that as a rule, because that will create a lot of unnecessary work. -- Ikan Kekek 07:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 02:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

File:New_Holland_TS110A_in_Tägerwilen.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination New Holland TS110A --JoachimKohler-HB 14:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Good quality, but left crop is not well done. Smaller zoom and/or more distance and it would have been a QI --Michielverbeek 14:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support I see no mistake in the composition of the image. The tractor with its trailer fills almost the entire room, forms a diagonal and works very well for me. Of course, we could have different opinions whether there should be seen more from the background. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 21:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Spurzem. The background is a bit disturbing, but I think the farm or yard belongs to the natural habitat of the tractor. --Smial 10:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Seven Pandas 02:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Toque_macaque_(Macaca_sinica)_05.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Toque macaque (Macaca sinica) at Katagamuwa Sanctuary - Sri Lanka. By User:Senthiaathavan --Tomer T 13:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 14:10, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose foreground intrudes --Charlesjsharp 14:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose monkey too far left and foreground issue. Seven Pandas 23:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 02:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

File:Stegna_Στεγνά_Rhodes_Ρόδος_2019-11-26_31_cat.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Curious cat in Stegna, Rhodes --Tsui 01:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support The essential black cat. --PtrQs 01:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
For me the focus of this image is on the face of the cat. In the eyes and the whiskers you see so many shades of black and a sharpness so far ahead of most animal portraits that technically I would rate this picture high above QI standards. The only thing that could disturb me is the window behind the ears, fortunately this rather disappears by haziness in full resolution. For the remarks about the crop: As the body raises from the lower rim of the picture it is more like a portrait than a full body display.
And the very fascinating thing about a black cat is that even if you can clearly see the eyes, there is always something hidden in the blackness, you can't ever see it in full definition. For me this black-catness is perfectly realised with this picture. --PtrQs (talk) 23:52, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose bottom crop --Charlesjsharp 14:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unfavorable bottom crop and lighting situation on the cat´s right side. Image description little fitting. --Milseburg 09:26, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Much of the cat is pitch black with no definition in its fur. Unfortunate lighting situation, as Milseburg says. -- Ikan Kekek 08:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
So let's hope nobody will ever present a picture of Vanta Black to QIC ;-)). Sticking to your rule about black will cause a paradox, as the more accurate the picture the stronger the violation of the rule. --PtrQs 00:47, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
That's different: It's a single material. Cats have fur, not a single, undifferentiated black material. Would you consider a closeup of a black cat's fur that is totally pitch black and featureless a QI? Then why is a photo in which a large part of it is featureless and pitch black? -- Ikan Kekek 12:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Well, I think you got my point about variations of black. We are just differing in the opinion about what sort of black a black cat's fur can be. The real rule about no black should be: No black acceptable if it's the result of losing visual information. But in cases, when there originally is no information to be lost by low light and/or wrong shutter speed, then black should be OK for QI standards (Vanta black, astronomy, flockings, pitch black pitches). And in physical terms Vanta black surfaces, flock coatings and fluffy black fur all try to absorb most of the light, just on different scales of it's design. So for me a fluffy black cat's fur can look black - even if there are brilliant glittering hairs seen among it - and therefore should be allowed to be presented black. But I realize, that these subtleties about black may end in hairsplitting and not many share my point of view. So have many thanks for this discussion. --PtrQs 01:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Certainly. I should say clearly that a photo of Vantablack can certainly be a QI. It would help for anyone nominating such a photo to note that it's the blackest material known to mankind, though. -- Ikan Kekek 06:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Seven Pandas 02:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)