Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 07 2015

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Schloss Raesfeld 3.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination castle Raesfeld, Germany--Nordenfan 11:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • {{s}} good quality Ficilbotoe95 13:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Striked, Confirmed sock account of the nominator (sic!) --Hubertl 14:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, especially because of socked puppetry, please reprocess, the saturation (blue) is unnatural --Hubertl 12:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 06:28, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Schloss Raesfeld 2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination castle Raesfeld, Germany--Nordenfan 11:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • {{s}} good quality Ficilbotoe95 13:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Striked, Confirmed sock account of the nominator (sic!) --Hubertl 14:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, especially because of socked puppetry, please reprocess, the saturation (blue) is unnatural --Hubertl 12:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hoffe nun mit einer Überarbeitung Abhilfe geschaffen zu haben Nordenfan 14:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  OpposeArtefacts, CA and sharpness - please see my notes - and saturation; sorry, IMO not a QI in that condition. Maybe a complete rework from RAW could save this picture. --Isiwal 08:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Isiwal (talk) 08:15, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Schloss Raesfeld 1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination castle Raesfeld, Germany--Nordenfan 11:32, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • {{s}} good quality Ficilbotoe95 13:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Striked, Confirmed sock account of the nominator (sic!) --Hubertl 14:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, especially because of socked puppetry, please reprocess, the saturation (blue) is unnatural --Hubertl 12:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hoffe nun mit einer Farbänderung Abhilfe geschaffen zu haben Nordenfan 13:43, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Heavy JPEG-artifacts in the sky and especially in the reflection --Tsungam 14:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 14:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Don´t cheat the community!

File:Acacia in Ein Khadra Desert Oasis(91).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Acacia tree in Ein Khadra Desert Oasis, Nuweibaa, South Sinai, Egypt.--لا روسا 23:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 22:28, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree: The category is not specific enough; it is a top level category without localisation. Also, as the tree is the central motif, it should be identified. Same goes with the other images of that series. --Cccefalon 04:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Cccefalon: ✓ Done Name y categorization.--لا روسا 09:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    •  Not done Still unspecific categories. First: Create a category "Ein Khadra Desert Oasis" (if this is the name of the heritage site) as a subcategory. Then add a category with the species of the tree. --Cccefalon 13:42, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ich finde es nun aber mal arg übertrieben, bei einem Landschaftsfoto, bei dem zufällig mal ein Baum in Bildmitte steht, die genaue biologische Bestimmung für QI zur Bedingung zu machen. Der nächste wird bei einem Foto einer Parkbank verlangen, daß der Stifter derselben (Sparkasse? Heimatverein? Schützenkönig?) namentlich erwähnt werden muß. Auch bei einigen anderen Kontrastimmen nebenan° könnte ein wenig mehr Lockerheit deutlich helfen, da geht es offensichtlich nicht mehr um taugliche Bilder, sondern um Regelhuberei, persönliche Animositäten und Erziehungsmaßnahmen. Wenn dadurch die Quote der akzeptablen Bilder erhöht werden soll, na danke. Kurioserweise driften die "Qualitäts"-Ansprüche der unterschiedlichen Reviewer zunehmend auseinander. Während manche bei all dem auf durchaus brauchbaren Nivea angelieferten Material nach den letzten drei verbliebenen Pixeln mit CA-Resten prokeln und jedes, aber auch wirklich jedes Bild perspektivekorrigieren wollen, auch wenn es gestalterisch gröbster Unfug ist, winken andere anscheinend je nach Namen des Bildautoren auch Aufnahmen mit schon in thumbgröße erkennbaren technischen Hudeleien durch. -- Smial 14:06, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Sorry @Smial: , i don't get what you have written, please write it in english or spanish.--لا روسا 14:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Well, the tree seems to be the central motif, so it should be ok to ask what kind of tree it is. Even a "Undetermined Coconut tree" is better than just "Tree". The title "Tree in Ein Khadra Desert Oasis, Nuweibaa, South Sinai, Egypt" also suggest that the tree is the main motif. Darüber hinaus bin ich jetzt irritiert, dass Baumbilder von mir jedesmal abgelehnt werden, wenn ich sie ohne species liefere und man mir nun vorwirft, ich sei kleinlich, weil mir eine Oberkategorie nicht reicht --Cccefalon 14:52, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Ich habe sicher noch keinen Baum wegen fehlender Species abgelehnt. Weshalb andere das so eng sehen, weiß ich nicht. Weiter unten sehe ich, daß es dir nicht um eine absolut exakte Bestimmung ging, da habe ich deinen englischen Text hier drüber wohl überinterpretiert. Sorry dafür. -- Smial 15:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
        • Bis ins kleinste Detail kann man die Species sowieso nur bestimmen, wenn Blüten und Früchte vorliegen, das ist schon klar. Deshalb haben die meisten Familien (oder sinds Gattungen?) ja auch die Kategorie Unidentified XY. Da schauen auch schon mal Experten vorbei und schubsen das Ding in eine bessere Kategorie. Aber zu wissen, dass in der Oase eine markante Akazie steht ist schon ein wesentlicher Fortschritt. Und schlussendlich denke ich auch, dass man Neulinge hier auch gleich mal auf die richtige Spur bringen sollte, wie ein gutgemachter Beitrag für WikiCommons aussehen könnte. --Cccefalon 22:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm not good in english. In short: I believe it is not necessary to specify the tree precisely in this image of a landscape. The rest of my words is a rant about general (mis-)interpretation of QIC rules. Not a rant about Cccefalon in person. -- Smial 14:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
لست متأكدا من أن كل شيء حقا كان مباح. --Hubertl 14:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@Cccefalon: i added also the category of Ein Khadra Desert Oasis, but about the species of the tree, i can't determine it, sorry.--لا روسا 14:43, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
@Hubertl: always, i wonder if i can find anyone who can write or translate into arabic in this page. Thanks.--لا روسا 14:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps, as someone who is familiar with that country you might have an idea, what kind of tree it is or what kind of fruits you can get from this tree? Is it perhaps a date palm; that is in my imagination a tree that should grow near an oasis. --Cccefalon 14:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
It is probably a species of en:Acacia. --C messier 15:46, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
May be is Citrullus colocynthis, the only fruit i saw there.--لا روسا 15:58, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Citrullus colocynthis doesn't become a tree. --C messier (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes it's Acacia, i'll modify it.--لا روسا 16:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Well done. Thank you for giving the tree a name! Cheers, --Cccefalon 18:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support GPS data (geocoding) would be fine. -- Smial 20:25, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 06:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Macrolepiota_procera_Parasol_Riesenschirmpilz_alter_Pufels_Bula_Gherdëina.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The parasol mushroom destroyed by heavy rain --Moroder 12:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Cccefalon 20:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree: the leaves in the foreground are quite disturbing. Denis Barthel 12:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 Comment ✓ Done I changed the crop for a more centered composition and less foreground. --Moroder 14:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Hockei 19:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 06:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Stift_Ardagger_Kirche_Hochaltar_04.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination High altar with gothic stained glass window devoted to St. Margaret (Margaretenfenster, 1230–40) in the collegiate church Ardagger, Lower Austria --Uoaei1 04:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 04:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support  Oppose Nice photo but I'm pretty unhappy with the filename/fildescription/categorization. The main subject of the picture is the totally ignored crucifix :-(( - BTW the glass window is even out of focus. --Moroder 17:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 Info The crucifix is the main element of the high altar. I have changed the image description. --Uoaei1 06:12, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 06:41, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Dune, Sainte-Marie-de-Ré, Ré island, Charente-Maritime, France.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Dune at Sainte-Marie-de-Ré, Ré island, Charente-Maritime, France.--Jebulon 19:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose bad filename with special characters --Ralf Roletschek 19:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 Comment This is pure trolling, I'll send this to admins, enough is enough.--Jebulon 19:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Ugly subject IMO, but QI (sorry, I can't understand your words)--Lmbuga 21:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 Request What is ugly in this picture? --Hockei 17:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Image, title and categorization ok --Christian Ferrer 14:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Not bad, but too bright. When reducing the brightness (maybe with curve) more details on the stones will appear. --Hockei (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 06:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC)