Review
(criteria) |
 Oppose Info I do have one photograph of the same storm with lightning however I'm not going to give the photo away for free-use. Lightning during the day is difficult to get on camera (unless you have a video camera). Bidgee 05:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] Comment You wouldn't need to release a high-resolution version to succeed with it here. --MichaelMaggs 16:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Oppose I agree with MER-C that it does not meets crit. 3. Concerning categorization, I also note it is not categorized (crit. 6) in accordance with topics relating to the scope of nomination. How should an WMF editor lokking for thunderstorm images find your photo? -- Slaunger 14:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment How about changing the scope from the above to Heavy precipitation or just Heavy rain? Bidgee 14:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like a more fitting scope (have not looked for competitors). See the instructions below on the review page for how-to-change-scope. In any case the image should be associated with a category or gallery of relevance to rain/precipitation. -- Slaunger 14:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Scope changed from A thunderstorm with heavy rain. to Heavy precipitation {{{3}}}
- Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
Scope changed from Heavy precipitation to Heavy rain {{{3}}}
- Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
(you should ask the early voters to consider changing their vote, as any opposes will still count. --MichaelMaggs 19:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
 Neutral Given scope change. MER-C 00:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Oppose IMO the scope is way too narrow. Also, if we have a valued image of a heavy rain, does that mean we could have a valued image of a rain, a valued image of a light rain, a valued image of a rain and the sun together? Besides IMO these images
  are better illustration of a heavy rain, but IMO VI would only win, if there's no valued image of a rain at all.--Mbz1 20:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment but none of those (two photos) show it falling from the cloud then onto the ground which the two above just for it falling onto the ground from an elevated height. Bidgee 14:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeChanged my reason for opposing I think the scope is OK, at that the image illustrates the scope well. However, I feel Image:Regnbyge.jpg has a slight edge over this nomination. It appears a little more heavy and the road gives a sense of scale in the image. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Disagree since you can still see thought the rain (Meteorological term is Rain shaft) so it's not heavy. 22:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- OpposeThat is a valid point, so I retract my oppose vote based on crit 1, but in the nominated image the rain shaft does not look that opaque either, so i would say it is not a good illustration of the scope. Thus, it fails due to crit. 3 instead. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Why are you looking at the left? The centre of the photo you can't see whats behind the rain shaft (IE: No sky) on the left the lighter rain shows that it in the centre is infact heavy rain. It also meets crit 3.
- 3. Must illustrate its subject well
- Although the emphasis for a VI is on its value, it is still expected that the image is of a reasonable technical quality and :standard. For photographs, the quality achievable using the built-in camera in a modern mobile phone should normally be good enough. :The technical standard required should be achievable by any photographer who has taken care over the image. This means:
- 1. Reasonable sharpness, lighting, composition and angle of view
- 2. No distracting, irrelevant elements (this can be mitigated if it is hard to re-establish the scenario)
- 3. The image must look good on-screen at the review size (e.g. 480x360 pixels for a standard 4:3 landscape image). Its usability in printed format is not considered. Bidgee (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI am not particularly looking at the left. I notice that everywhere in the image the horizon is intact and since the there are no features behind like hills, building, whatever, I cannot see that anything is being hidden or shadowed by a rain shaft. It may do so, but for me it is not apparent from the image. Thus, I do not feel it illustrates the subject well. -- Slaunger (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thats because the area is flat! The clouds in the background are hidden. It's clear you're just like this as it's my photo What more do you want? A lightning bolt hidden by rain? Delete all my commons photos really I could careless about this poor project in which I've tried to improve which seems to be unwelcome by other users here. Bidgee (talk) 00:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 2 oppose, 1 support =>
Declined. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
