Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 30 2016

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Kleeberg_von_Westen.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Kleeberg (Labuch), Styria, from the west --Clemens Stockner 14:15, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment bitte gerade stellen, es lehnt nach rechts. --Hubertl 14:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Zcebeci 14:59, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • {{o}} Conditional oppose, see comment above. --Hubertl 22:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support now! --Hubertl 15:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Should we just promote by acclamation to make it go quicker, since the original oppose was recounted by the opposer? It could stop CR from being cluttered with lots of images.--Peulle 18:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 17:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Babina Railway Station PF1 042016.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination A view of PF1 at Babina Railway Station. --Nikhilb239 01:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 09:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now: please fix categories and remove the black stripe on the sky at the very left. --A.Savin 13:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Quite a bright afternoon, but good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 05:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support OK to go. --A.Savin 06:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Should we just promote by acclamation to make it go quicker, since the original oppose was recounted by the opposer and there is no other oppose? It could stop CR from being cluttered with lots of images.--Peulle 18:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Doesn't seem like such an important issue to me. If we get twice as many images or more, we could revisit this. -- Ikan Kekek 21:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 17:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Tuska_20130628_-_Abhorrence_-_13.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Freshly reunited Finnish death metal band Abhorrence live at Tuska Open Air2013. By User:Cecil --Smial 10:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Guitar is cut off and face is not very sharp. You also should identify the man by name in the file description. -- Ikan Kekek 10:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Let's discuss. In my eyes its a  Support QI. --Ralf Roletschek 13:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per I.K. The crop is unfortunate but not a dealbreaker. The focus is soft, though, so altogether I find it's not quite QI.--Peulle 14:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --A.Savin 17:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

File:2016-11-17_-_Daniela_Schmitt_-_0341.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Daniela Schmitt (* 1972 in Alzey), deutsche Politikerin (FDP), Staatssekretärin im Ministerium für Wirtschaft, Verkehr, Landwirtschaft und Weinbau Rheinland-Pfalz. --Steschke 06:52, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Looks OK. --Peulle 12:44, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This one is also to tight on left and right to me, please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 13:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
     Comment Fair enough; I stand by my support since such portraits with similar crops have been promoted after CR in the past.--Peulle 19:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
     Comment Ich kann das Bild natürlich breiter beschneiden, müsste dazu aber oben mehr Freiraum lassen, wenn ich die Proportionen beibehalten will. Grundsätzlich halte ich den Beschnitt aber so für durchaus richtig. Es kommt mit bei der enzyklopädischen Fotografie auf das (unveränderliche) Gesicht und nicht auf die variable Frisur an. Umso mehr interessiert mich das Ergebnis der Diskussion hier. --ST 06:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I consider the crop too narrow. -- Ikan Kekek 07:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support the face is the main. --Alchemist-hp 09:11, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Aus meiner Sicht in Ordnung. --Olaf Kosinsky 09:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support i don't see any problem. --Ralf Roletschek 09:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
    Steschke, it is going to be difficult to have an "interesting" (and above all, fair) discussion whether this picture should or not be QI if the people participating in it are mainly involved in the Wiki takes Parliaments project. This makes me sad. Poco a poco 10:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Look here, this are Portraits from me, QI and cuttet hair. I think, many photos are better if portraits are closer. --Ralf Roletschek 12:36, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Some of time look fine to me if you go for a closer portrait, but this one for example is not a QI to me, it wouldn't promoted it, the crop looks randomed. Now we're though discussing a different image, please, let's not mix things up. Poco a poco 13:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support As others. --Smial 14:25, 27 November 2016 (UTC) (not involved and has here and then declined images from that procect)
  •  Support --PetarM 06:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 17:05, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Tuska_20130628_-_Abhorrence_-_18.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Freshly reunited Finnish death metal band Abhorrence live at Tuska Open Air2013. By User:Cecil --Achim Raschka 09:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Quality is good but the crop isn't, both at the top left corner and the bottom with the cut hand, sorry, not a QI to me --Poco a poco 18:13, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. Regarding the conditions the crop at the bottom is a really minor issue. And with the crop at the top I cannot see any issue. Cut spotlight? No problem with that. The image follows rule of thirds nearly perfectly. --Smial 10:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Cutoff hand is distracting and nothing is sharp. Nice expression, though. I might be willing to accept a lack of sharpness, but not that crop. -- Ikan Kekek 07:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
     Comment - Also, the man should be identified by name in the file description, as this is not a photo of the whole group. -- Ikan Kekek 07:21, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not only is the guitar cut off, but the hand too. Given the amount of room available on the top (there was room to spare, so the photographer could have aimed lower), I conclude that the composition is not good enough in this image.--Peulle 12:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 16:17, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Panasonic_Lumix_DMC-G80.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Panasonic Lumix DMC-G85/G80. Stacked shot. --PetarM 18:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Special.--Famberhorst 18:54, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don´t t think the dark background was a good choice here. --Milseburg 20:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support - Although not everything is in focus, I think this is good enough for QI, and using a dark background for an understated product photo is a valid artistic choice. -- Ikan Kekek 07:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support The choice of background is debatable and the DoF could be deeper, but good enough for QI.--Peulle 12:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Milseburg and my oppose at FPC. Daniel Case 20:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. Somewhat too high contrast, but good enough for QI. --Smial 23:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 16:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Landrover Defender Kap Verde IMG 4168a.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Land Rover Defender on the island São Nicolau (Kap Verde) --Christof46 16:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. There is green chromatic aberration, which can be fixed (I'm surprised you missed this, Poco), but the shallow DoF which leaves several parts of the vehicle out of focus cannot.--Peulle 19:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
    To be honest, Peulle, I have to go to 200% to see traces of CA Poco a poco 20:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I see them on the license plate at 100%.--Peulle 12:52, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support. I don't understand the criticism. -- Spurzem 20:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Are you being serious? There is no way you can not see that both the right headlight section and a third of the car shown to the right in this photo is out of focus. Even the side mirror is not in focus. The whole image is quite simply unsharp, IMO.--Peulle 09:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I think we should not exaggerate. If you say that this image is "quite simply unsharp" than it will be nearly impossible to find one which is sharp enough for you. -- Spurzem 13:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I have even made annotations on the file; this should be more than enough, although I am of the opinion that you'd have to be blind not to be able to see which parts are not in focus.--Peulle 14:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
"Running total" this time is not correct! I see 2 support and 1 oppose. -- Spurzem 15:30, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done --Berthold Werner 16:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 16:27, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - I'm sorry, but to me, this is a mediocre photo, not really a high-quality one. In addition to Peulle's criticisms, I really dislike the blurred windshield. -- Ikan Kekek 06:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 11:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lacking sharpness. A parking car is as easy to shoot as a building, and deserves better photographic quality. --A.Savin 13:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Extensive parts are out of focus. Alvesgaspar 18:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support as Poco a poco. --Hubertl 21:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 17:03, 29 November 2016 (UTC)