Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 12 2015

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:2015.07.11.-09-Mulde Eilenburg--Blaufluegelige Sandschrecke.jpg[edit]

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 06:10, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:2015.07.07.-25-Mulde Eilenburg--Schwarze Heidelibelle-Weibchen.jpg[edit]

... body all out of focus ... What a nonsense. --Hockei 10:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is. As far I can remember you haven't promoted any picture of me, have you? Only declined. Sometimes I wonder whether it's a personal thing. Maybe I'm wrong but I'm sceptical. --Hockei 18:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does it really matter and is it a good policy, to ask for mutually tit for tat? Some people do it, some not. Some refuse to give a positive vote in contrary of another positive vote. I think, that is perfectly ok. We are not just here to get a positive QI-counting. --Hubertl 13:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come on. Think twice before writing. In my eyes it's a tactic. CR don't work perfect. Once declined you can hope other people won't make a review or think the same what is suggested. Anyway, I won't let me forbid to say what I'm afraid. Maybe I shouldn’t waste my time in QIC anymore. In pictures from other people is accepted strong noise and artefacts and here there is suggested the face would be not in focus. And this is just one example. --Hockei 14:11, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
» Please try to be rational, Hockei. What kind of tatic and with what purpose? I seldom come here now, and when I come, I prefer to assess the images in CR, the ones other editors have already evaluated. Yes, it is true that I oppose a lot but that has always been my normal way. For me, QIC has always been a learning place, not a vanity fair. Alvesgaspar 23:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 07:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taricha_torosa,_Napa_County,_CA.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A California newt (Taricha torosa) from Napa County, CA. --Connorlong90 08:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 09:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree: Oversharpened with jpeg artefacts. --Cccefalon 15:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Full of artefacts. --Hockei 15:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Depth of field does a great job of highlighting the subject of the image (the newt's face). Minimal artifacting does not detract from the high quality framing, focus, and overall image. --Natejunk2004 03:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Interesting "expert vote" from someone who made one contribution to WikiCommons so far. But has already the experience to operate the QICtotal. It's fishy .... --Cccefalon 03:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Please critique the quality of my picture without being rude to the people who disagree with you. The guidelines page for QI specifically mentions the need to be polite in this process. It also states that users can disagree on what is technically acceptable. Natejunk2004's opinion is not less valid because he is less active on the site. --Connorlong90 01:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Only a very small part of the monster is in focus.--Jebulon 20:27, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Jebulon, thank you for your comment. My understanding was that shallow depth of field is allowed if it serves a purpose. In this instance, my intent was a closeup of the newt's head and upper body. The example picture of a cat is similarly framed.-- Connorlong90 00:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Connorlong90, sorry for oppose. I understand the purpose and I see your point, but it just does not work for me. Let's see what others say...--Jebulon 09:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. -- Der Wolf im Wald 18:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Weak support ok for me too. --Iifar 06:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • more or less weak  Support. Still acceptable -- DerFussi 14:16, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support the head is sharp. OK --Elrond 17:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Doesn't work for me, the front legs and hands should be focused as well, I wonder why a F/22 did not solve the problem! Alvesgaspar 21:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Info I've revoked my vote because I'll discontinue my activities in QIC. --Hockei 06:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 20:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

File:1144 230, Wien Praterstern.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Original (Deutsch): 1144 230 vor einem Doppelstockzug fährt als R 2325 Richtung Payerbach-Reichenau am Bahnsteig 2 des Bahnhofs Wien Praterstern ein
    Google Translate (English): 1144 230 in front of a double-decker continues as R 2325 towards Payerbach-Reichenau on the platform 2 of the station Vienna Praterstern is a --Pokéfan95 22:52, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Only the first wagon is in focus what I think the whole train should be. --Ermell 08:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree, how will you get a complete train full in focus, when the engine is that close? Focus bracketing? --Hubertl 16:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support This was taken at f/7.1. Depth of field can be improved by stopping down to f/11 or beyond (it's a full frame camera) as lighting conditions are very bright but right now it seems OK to me. Dllu 23:36, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 21:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roleček 00:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For me it is not QI. DOF problem. Not even the whole front of the loco is in focus. Also the crop left end left down is too tight. --Hockei 15:27, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'd expect best sharpness at the head of the train. -- Smial 15:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Foreground is unfocused and crop is too tight on the left (let the poor thing breathe!) -- Alvesgaspar 17:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with opposers.--Jebulon 22:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Alvesgaspar here Poco a poco 07:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Declined   --Poco a poco 07:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)