Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 2006

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

Consenual reviewed images[edit]

Goethe-Heykel'01-Frankfurt'am'Main.jpg

|

  • Nomination Good presentation of a difficult subject Gnangarra 07:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good illustration CyrilB 10:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Resolution is 685x1024, 357 KB. I think its too small for contemporary digital photograph. --Wikimol 12:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I forgot to look at this. I agree the resolution is too low CyrilB 16:35, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, I think I'm still thinking with the way I'm used to post e-mail attachements: keep the data load as low as possible without compromising the image quality. Yet, Commons doesn't seem to be in memory space trouble, :-). I'll try to upload a version with a larger resolution. Thanks... --Doruk Salancı 09:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


Honeywell thermostat open.jpg

|

  • Nomination 'Famous' Honeywell thermostat for building by User:Vdegroot
  • Promotion Image size on lower end of requirement, composition and presentation of subject very good Gnangarra 14:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The glare on the plastic (probably due to using flash aligned with the camera's main axis) significantly detracts from the quality of the image. The use of off-axis and/or indirect lighting would have been a significant improvement. Kelly Martin 20:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


Endomembrane system diagram en.svg
  • Nomination Clear diagram CyrilB 10:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Promotion I cant get this image to appear on image page, or here Gnangarra 14:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I promise I was visible when I nominated it! I suppose this is a problem with the thumbnail generation, as I can see the original diagram with firefox. This is a shame because this diagram is very professional CyrilB 21:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I cleaned the cache, and now I can see it. Will you change your mind? Also, if you prefer, a version without captions is available CyrilB 21:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I can see it now yep i support, my issue was not being able see more than thumb so I couldnt judge its quality Gnangarra 04:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Originally declined consensus Result Promotion Gnangarra 11:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

PolyxenaFedi.jpg
  • Nomination Statue Rape of Polyxena by Fedi from 1865 Thermos 15:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Promotion Very detailled picture
    • This is image was promoted more than two days ago, but unfortunately, the promoter did not sign his promotion. What we should do with this kind of situations? Please notice that this issue will also affect (to lesser extent) the "Geysir Bubble" image from 9th of July, where promotion does not have the time stamp (and sorry, if this came to wrong place) --Thermos 00:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • For now suggest that if this occurs and the date cant be established from a quick check of history, then you just add current date/time and the 48 hours is applied from then, as this continues to grow it may better to remove the result and return it a nomination. Gnangarra 10:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Should have thought about that. I found the promotion to be from 18:47, 11 July 2006, made by CyrilB in a post where he promoted four images. Thank you Gnangarra for the tip. As we now know where the promotion originates and the time, per your message I think that the image should now be considered as QI. --Thermos 11:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
      • oops! I even completely forgot that I nominated that picture! sorry guys! CyrilB 12:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • No damage done and thank you for promotion. More skilled user than me should have thought what Gnangarra suggested... But good thing is that this got sorted... --Thermos 12:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Result promotion Gnangarra 11:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Charcoal iron open.jpg
  • Nomination (historical importance) Charcoal iron by User:Vdegroot
  • Decline Good subject presentation Gnangarra 14:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There are problems with isolation. QI dont have specific guideline yet, so we shall probably set some. What I mean... this image was proabably made using using the "magic wand" or similar tool. You can see that clearly when you magnify the image to 200% - observe for example the contour of the nut, or remaining pixels not background near the hinge. Top quality isolations are usualy done by hand, which produces natural smooth contours. +the selection should be adjusted by "feather", so the edges arent so hard.
  • So, there is the question, where to set the bar. Its possible to promote this one and similar in the future, or to the oposite. Personally, I'd be for the later alternative -this woundn't pass in comercial image agency. --Wikimol 15:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • While I agree that the isolation is not perfect, I think it is good enough for most uses, and most of the damage can be corrected by smoothing some transitions. The overall quality of the image is good, and the resolution enough for printing. I support the nomination of this image.
    • I think we have to found the "threshold" for the quality images. For example, I honestly think that with a proper isolation, this image could have been featured. IMO, quality images should be defined as "good" images for further use, nothing more.CyrilB 21:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It is not that difficult (though time consuming) to get a proper 'isolation'. This one is definitely sub-standard (see Image:Liocarcinus marmoreus 2.jpg for a correct isolation) -- Lycaon 22:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
originally promoted consensus Result - Decline, this has set the minimum standard for isolations, Gnangarra 15:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


BUFFALO159.JPG
  • Nomination Water Buffalo by User:Da
  • Promotion Illustrative and good resolution. --Wikimol 11:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I feel that this image is cropped too closely; I feel "scrunched" when I look at it. The photographer (or, more likely, the photoeditor) failed to observe the "rule of thirds" when framing the image. Kelly Martin 20:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • While I agree with you that this image would be better with more "breathing space", especially on top and bottom, I find that the so-called "rule of thirds" (which, of course, is by no means a law) is observed: the eyes of the animal are perfectly positioned! As far as I'm concerned, I think that this picture is good enough to get the "quality picture" label, by its illustrative value. CyrilB 12:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Crops are allways question of intent and desired expression... some people like very tight crops, cropping even parts of the subject to achive dramatic effect, others like lot of space to put subject into environment, which causes other people argue the subject is lost, and so on... I think QI review should go some middle way, decline pictures with important parts missing, but otherwise be tolerant. IMO in this this pictures the crop doesnt spoil the illustrative purpose. After some thought I think it even has some +, how the animal fills the whole space adds a bit to the feeling of its size, at least for me. --Wikimol 20:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I totally agree. We have to draw a line between quality and featured images. This one is informative, has not big technical flaw, IMO that's enough. CyrilB 21:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Result promotion Gnangarra 15:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


Bauhinia-monandra-Réunion.jPG
  • Authorship and copyright info is unclear. As a source is given user Bouba. If it is the case, than license {{self|...}} included by Thierry Caro is invalid. If it can be sorted out, I would be for promotion.--Wikimol 14:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I have left a request for clarification/fix on User:Thierry Caro talk page Gnangarra 15:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • How long should we wait for a response to these types of questions Gnangarra 11:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • 7 days no response, suggest that this image be declined due to unclear copyright, any objections? Gnangarra 15:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


Map of current US Routes.svg
  • Nomination Impressive work CyrilB 21:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Decline Impressive but I feel theres too much information and the colour variants are too similar
  • Another format that needs a definative set of criteria, how do we assess these - I know there are colour combinations that colour blind people cant distinguish should this be part of the criteria. Gnangarra 15:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


Garnisons Kirke Copenhagen headstone.jpg
  • Nomination Headstone at Garnisons Church Copenhagen by User:IbRas
  • Promotion It's still boring, but technically OK. --IbRas 08:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • QI don't need to be impressive or particulary interesting. I don't see any technical flaws, so I would promote the image. --Wikimol 10:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I nominated this image as its very good example of the presentation of the subject, the simplists subjects are sometimes the hardest do well and the easiest to fault, I couldn't find any technical faults. Gnangarra 15:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I completely agree with Wikimol and Gnangarra. In encyclopedic sense, the project needs images that may be dull, but which are needed to illustrate the subject. --Thermos 15:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • All rigth, guys, you've talked me into it. I'll change my review to promoted. --IbRas 19:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


Menara Garden,Morocco,Marrakech.jpg
  • Nomination Ménara Garden, Marrakech, Morocco, by User:Wanted..
  • Decline Resolution too low (< 2MP) --IbRas 11:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC) I like this image a lot. If author could provide an image with 1600x1200 resolution or bigger as per guidelines, I would would promote this one immediately. --Thermos 11:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I have placed a request with the uploader for a larger version, editor hasn't been active for 2 weeks so we'll see what happens. Gnangarra 15:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It unlikely to be reuploaded so it can can be archived Gnangarra 11:41, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


Uxmal.jpg
  • Nomination Mayan architecture at Uxmal --Drini 05:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Promotion Only a part of the building is visible CyrilB 22:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm moving this to consensual review since it was intended to show only part of the building (it was a very large building so displaying it all would miss detail. --Drini 15:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC) }}
  • Note: The view is from the interior of a quadrangle of low buildings, with the pyramid-temple in background outside of the quadrangle. From the architectural lay out of the site, I don't think a single photo showing "all" could be made, unless possibly from the air. -- Infrogmation 13:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think that the composition displays the subject as intended, when working with buildings balancing between structure and detail is difficult, as the purpose is detail not structure the composition is good, the question for me light/colour Gnangarra 11:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


Pyrrhosoma nymphula (xndr).jpg
  • Nomination Pyrrhosoma nymphula by User:Svdmolen
  • Promotion Great details and DOF. -Keqs 22:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I have moved this down here, because the image does not fulfill the size requirements, but it is a borderline case, and if the rest of you like it enough to make an exception, I won't be difficult about it. --IbRas 19:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I noninamted this image. I like it and think that size is due to cropping of effect Gnangarra 11:41, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, even thought it's a bit less than 2MP, the image is very sharp and clear. So I agree it may be a hi-res image cropped to frame only the intended part. Drini 18:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)