Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:26 Langobardenstrasse.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:26 Langobardenstrasse.jpg[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 12 May 2013 at 15:16:37 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info all by darkweasel94 -- darkweasel94 Diskussion/talk/diskuto 15:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Support -- darkweasel94 Diskussion/talk/diskuto 15:16, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Really nice scene but insufficient sharpness, sorry. --A.Savin 20:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)- Oppose Insufficient quality. --Julian H. (talk/files) 19:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Comment These reasons for opposition do surprise me a lot, since this photo was accepted as a quality image (where the purely technical requirements are supposed to be higher, not lower). But ok ... darkweasel94 19:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know about theory, but in practice, requirements there are lower in every category. At least from my experience. Which doesn't mean that I think this should be a QI. --Julian H. (talk/files) 20:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- See COM:IG for where I got that information from. Seems that theory isn't always equal to practice - but that's ok. darkweasel94 21:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- I guess the situation is (approximately) the following: QIs have to meet a certain excellence through quality (say, 6 Quality-Points out of 10). FPs have to meet higher standards (something like 12 points), but they can assemble those through quality and content (Wow-factor, usefulness, rarity, ...). If a photo of the quality of yours would be the only one we had from a different planet, it would probably be a FP. But I personally would give it more something around a 4 on a quality-scale (all detail is lost due to heavy noise reduction, probably in-camera) and something around a 7 on a content scale and therefore, for me personally, it's not FP or QI. For QI, someone had a different opinion, which is perfectly fine. The same could happen here, it's only one vote. All mileages may vary. --Julian H. (talk/files) 09:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining your opposition in more detail. In fact, much of the noise reduction was done manually by me, since the originally somewhat noisy shadow in the background of the tram was disturbing me. I might be able to get a better result if I edit the original again, now with less noise reduction. I may nominate that edited version when I have it. darkweasel94 10:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- I guess the situation is (approximately) the following: QIs have to meet a certain excellence through quality (say, 6 Quality-Points out of 10). FPs have to meet higher standards (something like 12 points), but they can assemble those through quality and content (Wow-factor, usefulness, rarity, ...). If a photo of the quality of yours would be the only one we had from a different planet, it would probably be a FP. But I personally would give it more something around a 4 on a quality-scale (all detail is lost due to heavy noise reduction, probably in-camera) and something around a 7 on a content scale and therefore, for me personally, it's not FP or QI. For QI, someone had a different opinion, which is perfectly fine. The same could happen here, it's only one vote. All mileages may vary. --Julian H. (talk/files) 09:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
- See COM:IG for where I got that information from. Seems that theory isn't always equal to practice - but that's ok. darkweasel94 21:16, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know about theory, but in practice, requirements there are lower in every category. At least from my experience. Which doesn't mean that I think this should be a QI. --Julian H. (talk/files) 20:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
I withdraw my nomination - new version at Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:26 Langobardenstrasse edit.jpg. darkweasel94 12:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
