Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 16 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:17-07-01-Katukuvaa_pääkaupungissa_RR73657.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Katukuvaa pääkaupungissa, Rolls-Royce Phantom V --Ralf Roletschek 00:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Vengolis 02:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Missing category, location --A.Savin 03:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Alle Angaben vorhanden. Es gibt nur eine Hauptstadt von Finnland. Wo in Helsinki das Auto gerade herumsteht, ist irrelevant. --Ralf Roletschek 08:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment And as usual the file needs a better name, calling all these files "Street view in the capital" even if it is masked by Finish spelling is not QI policy. --W.carter 09:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now - file has no meaningful name (see QI Guidelines). @Ralf Roletschek: You take nice photos and I realize that you have your own system for naming and sorting your files, but please remember that Commons needs to use a different system. You can use dates and even codes like "RR73657" in addition to the meaningful name, but surely you can see that an image of a Rolls Royce should be called something with "Rolls Royce" in it? --Peulle 11:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 19:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

File:17-07-01-Katukuvaa_pääkaupungissa_RR73800.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Katukuvaa pääkaupungissa, poliisiauto --Ralf Roletschek 20:26, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Vengolis 02:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Missing category, location --A.Savin 03:13, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose file name.--Peulle 11:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Das Auto sollte im oberen Teil etwas dunkler sein. Die K.O.-Kritikpunkte hingegen sind für mich nicht nachvollziehbar. -- Spurzem 11:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 19:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Stictopleurus_Cirse_Verrières.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Stictopleurus Punctatonervosus hidden in a Common Thistle. --MirandaAdramin 18:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. Slightly low DOF but still QI IMO. --Shankar Raman 16:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree . Not a QI for me. --Vengolis 02:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Marginal, but not QI for me - DOF too shallow --Alandmanson 12:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 19:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Thomise_Verrières_3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Crab Spider (Thomisus onustus) in its nest. --MirandaAdramin 18:58, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Shankar Raman 16:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry to disagree :( Not a QI for me. --Vengolis 02:53, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support I think there is sufficient DOF to get enough of the important bits in focus - Good quality. --Alandmanson 13:19, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 19:03, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Ebermannstadt_Bahnhofsfest_Cadillac_17RM1297.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination 1968 Cadillac DeVille convertible at the train station party in Ebermannstadt --Ermell 07:44, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality -- Spurzem 11:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Missing category, location. Bavaria is big. --A.Savin 03:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Good quality. There is nothing missing. Why should it be necessary to say whether the care is photographed in Bavaria, or in the Netherlands or in Italia and so on? -- Spurzem 11:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 14:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 19:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Lübeck,_Elbe-Lübeck-Kanal,_Geniner_Ufer_--_2017_--_0285.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Boot at the Genin Bank (Elbe-Lübeck Canal, Lübeck, Schleswig-Holstein, Germany --XRay 03:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn
  •  Oppose Unfortunately the choice of aperture effects some kind of blurryness of an otherwise potentially interesting background what leads to perturbation instead of increasing the very likely intended focus on the centred boat. --Jotzet 11:27, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose You both have good points, IMO; the boat is sharp enough, but the background is a problem. Were it simply out of focus I'd accept it since the boat is the subject, but this blurry effect is really distracting since there is so much background in the photo. Perhaps cropping would be a solution?--Peulle 10:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --W.carter 08:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:17-07-02-Maidan_Nezalezhnosti_RR74359.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Maidan Nezalezhnosti in Kiew --Ralf Roletschek 21:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality -- Spurzem 21:38, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The building is unsharp and tilted and it is cut at the right (as well as the bridge) --A.Savin 02:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The main problem for me is the composition; wide crop on the left with lots of space while there right side is cut off.--Peulle 10:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 19:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Crepidula arenata 01.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Shell of a slipper limpet, Crepidula arenata --Llez 18:05, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose For once I must decline one of your nice shell images; the left one is out of focus and the right lacks detail. --Peulle 19:51, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please discuss: The surface structure at the left is sharp, also the small white spots in the center of the shell (have a look on them in high resolution), the brown colour spots aren't (also not in the orginal!). The right: Which detail do you expect in a smooth whitish surface? Even the fine surface structure of the septum is clearly visible --Llez 20:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
 Comment I suppose that since it's a white shell with brown spots I was expecting them to be crisper - that there should be some contrasts between the brown and the white. It looks like the DoF is too shallow. Unlike your earlier work, like this excellent shot or this one, the current nomination doesn't really show the gradient lines or stripes.--Peulle 11:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
The specimens mentioned by you belong to completely different families (Fissurellidae and Patellidae respectively) whose shells and shell structure is not comparable with representants of the family Calyptraeidae. I do not reject a picture of an apple for reason that its surface is not the same as the surface of a peach. --Llez 11:15, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 Info There is some variability in this species as well as in the shell surface, as in the shell colour, as the colour of he spots, some shells lack the spots at all, see here. Without knowing the original colours of the photographed shell, you can't judge whether the colours of this shell are correct or not. I will not change the colours and the contrast, for this would be a falsification of the photographed shell. I invite you to visit me for comparing the original with the photo --Llez 14:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
You mean it actually looks like that? You can see what I'm talking about, right? That the colours seem to bleed into each other?--Peulle 20:20, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I mean --Llez 11:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me.--Ermell 19:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Peulle, --Cvmontuy 14:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Llez is absolutely correct. The image shows the surface structure perfectly and alteration would be as he says falsification. This is what the shell looks like and this image is QI beyond question.I took a look at one under a Leitz microscope and this what you see. For the same reason (shell microstructure)detail in white shells (very white) may seem lacking due to exposure problems when the exposure is entirely correct. The eye sees no more because the colour is structural. Trust us on this one Notafly 20:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Very well - considering your skill level (evident from your previous work) I shall trust your judgement on this.--Peulle 02:46, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me.--Alandmanson 13:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 19:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)