Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 22 2015

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Vache00.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Sexy charolais cattle.--Classiccardinal 20:22, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support GQ --Palauenc05 05:30, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Insufficiently sharp and inappropriate description. --Charlesjsharp 09:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Charles --Σπάρτακος 12:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not sharp --Denkmalhelfer (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined Code 19:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

File:European_robin_(Erithacus_rubecula)_with_nest_material.jpg[edit]

Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined Code 19:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Southern_vine_snake_(Thelotornis_capensis_capensis).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Southern vine snake (Thelotornis capensis capensis), Phinda Private Game Reserve, KwaZulu Natal, South Africa --Charlesjsharp 11:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose unsharp --Christian Ferrer 17:14, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment yes indeed, you, first you have my attention this way with the examples you cite, however when I want to decline your photos I did not need to invent a pretext, this image is really unsharp --Christian Ferrer 04:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment and you too the first, isn't it your opposes in response to my oppose on File:Nyala (Nyala angasii) female.jpg? --Christian Ferrer 05:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, it's a nice picture but it's unsharp IMO to be QI. As Christian Ferrer--Lmbuga 20:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined Code 19:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Small_tortoiseshell_(Aglais_urticae_L.)_Port_Meadow.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Small tortoiseshell (Aglais urticae L.) Port Meadow, Oxford --Charlesjsharp 11:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose unsharp --Christian Ferrer 17:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment yes indeed, you, first you have my attention this way with the examples you cite, however when I want to decline your photos I did not need to invent a pretext, this image is really unsharp --Christian Ferrer 04:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined Code 19:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

File:2015-02-28_Electric_Avenue_Museumsquartier_Wien_Kunstmeile_9540.jpg[edit]

 Comment Beside the question about quality: I'm not sure, if taking a photo of another photographs images might perhaps be a copyvio of if de minimis applies here. --Cccefalon 06:41, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This is a permanent presented art object, open to the public. And because of the austrian copyright laws (which exactly this situation makes the difference to the german and all other countries law situation afaik worldwide) its part of FOP. Permanent in the decisions of austrian high court jurisdiction means, at least six month. In this case, this art object is presented longer than one year. Vos fēlīcibus Austriacorum, photografica! Sed, quae ante semper ambulant lente tuas!--Hubertl 06:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My latin lessons are too long ago, but I got the FOP part :) thank you for your explanations, this copvio stuff is always a little bit tricky ... --Cccefalon 04:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Soferne ich es einigermaßen richtig übersetzt habe: Ihr glücklichen Ösis, fotografiert! Was immer vor eurer Linse vorbeispaziert.--Hubertl 19:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 02:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stollenmundloch_Grube_Magdalena_Morsbach.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Stollenmundloch der Grube Magdalena in Morsbach, NRW, Hausteinrahmung von 1890 inschriftlich datiert. Denkmalgeschütztes Bauwerk. 2.050 m langer Stollen, eröffnet 1890 für den Abbau von Eisenerz. --Reneman 12:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment QI for me with English description. The image data must be in at least two languages. If possible, English. To be classified in Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted (It is not a rule, it is my opinion)--Lmbuga 14:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  • {{s}} Good quality. The user does not respond, but the picture is good. I think that the nomination must be in English, but I'm not sure and, if so, it's a good picture and, perhaps, an interesting partner--Lmbuga 16:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Could a German user explain to the author what happens?--Lmbuga 16:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hm. According to his Babel-infobox on dewiki Reneman speaks English as well. But however: Lmbuga ist der Meinung, die Nominierung des Bildes müsste in Englisch erfolgen, weil das Bild sonst nachher nicht kategorisiert werden kann. Außerdem sollte die Bildbschreibung in mindestens zwei Sprachen sein, vorzugsweise sollte eine davon Englisch sein. Lmbuga räumt aber ein, dass das keine feststehende Regel ist, sondern seine eigene Meinung. Von mir übrigens ein
  •  Support: Very good quality. --Code 05:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ganz offensichtlich habt leider IHR ein Problem mit der Sprache. Erstens sind die Regeln klipp und klar formuliert: Commons:Leitlinie für Qualitätsbilder#Anforderungen an Qualitäts- und exzellente Bilder. Hier steht, dass ein Bild über einen sinnvollen Namen und eine geeignet Beschreibung verfügen soll. Dieses Bild verfügt über einen sinnvollen Namen und eine geeignete Beschreibung! Zweitens wurde bereits am 10. Apr. 2015 eine weitere Sprache ergänzt. Bevor ihr also Tage später über dieses "Problem" immernoch diskutiert, hättet ihr euch das Bild lieber nocheinmal engesehen! Drittens ist das Wiki immernoch ein Gemeinschaftsprojekt! Wenn einer der Meinung ist, dass eine Kategorie, Beschreibung, Geodaten oder sonst was ergänzt werden sollte, dann sollt er es einfach tun! Denn vom Diskutieren wird sich nichts ändern! So, dass war mein Wort zum Sonntag! Wäre sinnvoll, wenn die Bewertenden erst die Regeln lesen! MfG --Reneman 22:39, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • @Reneman: Was soll die Pöbelei? Ich habe auf Bitten von Lmbuga seine Anmerkung übersetzt, nichts weiter. Außerdem hab ich Deinem Bild ein Pro gegeben, als reg Dich ab. Übrigens: Wenn man während des QI-Prozesses Änderungen macht (Sprachen ergänzen etc.) dann teilt man das auf der QIC-Seite mit und wartet nicht drauf, ob es jemand von selbst merkt. Und jetzt arbeite mal an Deinem Tonfall. --Code 15:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I don't want to think or opine. es: Por lo dicho:La propuesta en QIC debe estar en inglés. Para que varíe mi opinión se me ha de hablar en una lengua que entienda y solamente entiendo gallego, castellano y portugués (I can't translate my words, sorry)--
Thanks Code--Lmbuga 20:22, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted Code 19:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Nyala (Tragelaphus angasii) male.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Nyala (Nyala angasii) male, Phinda Private Game Reserve, KwaZulu Natal, South Africa --Charlesjsharp 21:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose unsharp --Christian Ferrer 17:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
    2nd opinion please. This tit-for-tat oppose done in response to my oppose of file:Apis mellifera on Cistus albidus 01.jpg --Charlesjsharp 10:37, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
     Comment thanks to highlight that, really a pity that your comment can make this image sharper, that's proove your idea of sharpness when it concerns your images or images from others that you want to decline.... --Christian Ferrer 04:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment and you too the first, isn't it your opposes in response to my oppose on File:Nyala (Nyala angasii) female.jpg? --Christian Ferrer 05:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined Code 19:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Apis_mellifera_on_Cistus_albidus_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Apis mellifera (Western honey bee) on Cistus albidus --Christian Ferrer 11:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Zcebeci 11:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bee is not sharp. --Charlesjsharp 13:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment The bee is less sharp than the flower because it is active and there is a little motion blur on the bee, but it's not really disturbing and widely acceptable IMO --Christian Ferrer 17:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Accetable --Livioandronico2013 08:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done thank you all, reworked version uploaded, the last one is better --Christian Ferrer 17:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support The sharpened area is a little area, but it's QI IMO. Bee is too little as subject, but the subject is not only the bee--Lmbuga 20:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted Code 19:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Lycaena_thersamon_-_Lesser_Fiery_Copper_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Wing upperside of male Lesser Fiery Copper (Lycaena thersamon). Adana - Turkey. --Zcebeci 10:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality --Halavar 10:59, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Head is not in focus. --Charlesjsharp 13:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Head is not in focus. For my taste, too much space at right--Lmbuga 14:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined Code 19:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Golf_I_2014-09-07_13-35-24.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Golf I --Berthold Werner 09:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Σπάρτακος 16:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry. But in my opinion the car is too distorted. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 18:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Spurzem, maybe a more "normal" focal length around 30-35mm would have been better here. Also, I find the background a bit busy. --El Grafo 09:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with others, and it seems to me the crop is too tight .-.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 07:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined Code 19:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Flap-necked_chameleon_(Chamaeleo_dilepis)_female.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Flap-necked chameleon (Chamaeleo dilepis) female, iSimangaliso Wetland Park, KwaZulu Natal, South Africa --Charlesjsharp 12:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Nice and very good -- Spurzem 12:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose unsharp, you said my images are unsharp (here and here, yours is much less sharp --Christian Ferrer 17:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  • For someone who ask to me for a high level of sharpness (Charlesjsharp), see my exemple, I want at least the half of sharpness that he ask to me. It is logical not revenge. --Christian Ferrer 10:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Anyway the head isn't not sharp.Please,before criticizing the photos of others is good to see their own, with affection --Livioandronico2013 08:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support As I said above. -- Spurzem 08:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough. --Code 09:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support It's not very good IMO, but QI: very good composition, but the head could be better. Good resolution, bigger than other pictures, and the head is not fully or completely unfocussed--Lmbuga 12:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support. --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 13:02, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Agree with Lmbuga: acceptable. --Aiwok 10:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks fine for me --Denkmalhelfer 13:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted Code 19:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Pipe_organ_of_St._George_in_Locorotondo.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Pipe organ of St. George in Locorotondo --Livioandronico2013 09:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. The overexposed window at the top is too disturbing. --XRay 11:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    Excuse me but I like have other opinions,the Subject have a good exposure--Livioandronico2013 11:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
     Comment No problem. If you have the RAW file you should try to reduce the lights at the windows.--XRay 12:11, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Better XRay? Thanks --Livioandronico2013 18:25, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
     Support Ok for me --Uoaei1 15:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
     Neutral It's not good, but it's better. And it may be acceptable.--XRay 17:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Good view to the organ but the window is too bright. -- Spurzem 18:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted Code 19:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Ålesund in May 2013.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination A shot of Ålesund, Norway. --Miyagawa 17:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Has a slight CW tilt. Could benefit from a geocode. Nicely detailed with lovely light. -- Slaunger 19:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, certainly very nice, but perspective distortion (barrel or lens distortion), blown out (overexposed areas: See 3 notes as example). CAs (perhaps minor CAs: See note).--Lmbuga 19:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined Code 19:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Nationaal Park Weerribben-Wieden. Locatie Weerribben. Rijp op eikenbladeren.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination De Weerribben-Wieden National Park. Location Weerribben. Hoarfrost on oak leaves (Quercus).
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 17:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Hoar frost is not sharp enough. --Charlesjsharp 23:02, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New version.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
     Comment seems over-processed now, but see what others think, --Charlesjsharp 20:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable. --Cccefalon 06:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support The colours of the previous version are more natural. Frost is a liquid. May be not so sharp --ArishG 05:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC))
  •  Support Looks fine for me but not fully sahrp. --Denkmalhelfer 13:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted Code 19:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Aleksanterinkatu.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Aleksanterinkatu, Helsinki. --Óðinn 21:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. The latern at the left is cropped, people and latern at the right too. --XRay 04:34, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment New version uploaded. --Óðinn 04:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined Code 19:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

File:SAAP Hyd.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Entrance of erstwhile Sports Authority of Andhra Pradesh.--Nikhilb239 08:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality. Blurred, perspective distortion, not sharp enough (18mm with this lens is very often a problem!) --Hubertl 08:28, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. The image is somewhat tilted, what can be fixed easily. But where is the blur? Sharpness is completely acceptabel. --Smial 10:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose please see my note: very bad perspective distortion on the left side.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 13:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose With PEL, and wrong lighting IMO.--Jebulon 20:28, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined Code 19:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Fields,_İmamoğlu_06.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Fields in İmamoğlu, Adana - Turkey. --Zcebeci 12:33, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose I think it is tilted. Colours also a bit oversaturated. --Kadellar 15:01, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
    No saturation was applied. Pls see its other versions too. It was a sloppy land and therefore it may look like a bit tilted. Thanks for your kind review. --Zcebeci 00:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
     Support QI for me. I do not see tilt and the colours are good. --Halavar 23:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversaturated and looks tilted. -- Slaunger 20:31, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversaturated. I don't like the composition: too much sky (rule of thirds)--Lmbuga 14:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Hubertl 12:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Palauenc05 12:33, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Clearly tilted, and I don't use the mountains as point of reference but what it appears to be a flat surface. --C messier 13:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry,oversaturated --Livioandronico2013 20:06, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't think it's oversaturated (though I might've saturated it a bit less myself) and I see no tilt. I like the composition. Reminds me of my township pictures. Jakec 20:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversaturated.--Jebulon 20:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Declined Code 19:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)