Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 14 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Batocera_rufomaculata_@_Kanjirappally_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Batocera rufomaculata. Photographed from Kanjirappally, Kerala --Praveenp 08:55, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 09:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Shallow DOF. Head is not in focus --Vengolis 01:33, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Question How big is this insect? I think that's a salient question. Though I would observe that the head is not in focus at full screen on my laptop, the animal as a whole is pretty sharp. At full size, none of it is sharp, but full size is tremendous. -- Ikan Kekek 07:51, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not much in focus. Charlesjsharp 22:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --W.carter 12:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Sahyadri_Duffer_@_Kanjirappally.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sahyadri Duffer (Discophora lepida). Photographed near Kanjirappally --Praveenp 15:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality --Alandmanson 13:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry to disagree. When looking at the thumb it looks OK .wings are not in focus --Vengolis 01:55, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose wings. Charlesjsharp 22:37, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --W.carter 12:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Resciesa_Funes_y_Val_dl_Adesc.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Eisack vally from the mount Resciesa. --Moroder 20:58, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Very weak  Support. Composition not the best. May be improvable with haze filter (for example a feature of Adobe Lightroom). --XRay 04:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not a clear QI. It´s too unsharp and there are problems in the sky. --Milseburg 12:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per XRay and Milseburg. As you don't use Lightroom, you can try to reduce the haze by toning up "clarity" or "midtone contrast" (if available in your program). --Basotxerri 16:08, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --W.carter 12:37, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Colonial_Garden_gazebo_NBG_LR.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Colonial Garden gazebo NBG --PumpkinSky 00:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 01:59, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The strong CA at the fence should be fixed --Ermell 19:57, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
    • ✓ DoneI've removed the purple fringing. PumpkinSky 01:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ermell (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 07:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

* Oppose -- hope, I'm not too late, but hasn't anybody seen those STRONG orange bars - effect of far too much CA correction?!?? --PtrQs 23:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes you were too late. The discussion had already closed about three days after the last vote and you came in more than a day after that. I think we all have to follow proper procedure weather we like it or not. I'm striking your vote as invalid and restoring the closed discussion. --W.carter 12:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
    • -- Thank you for your information. I didn't want to break any rules. But according to the images properties I'll now have to do the next legal step. I remember having read about a process to challenge improper QIs. --PtrQs 13:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict) That sounds interesting. I haven't seen that rule/ process and it would be very useful to learn more about it. Just don't call it "legal step", there are no legal properties involved in the QI process, that is just a ranking system on this site and within this community. It has noting to do with legal things. :) --W.carter 15:55, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • And I see now that you striked your comment and I like your new approach much better. I'm sure PumpkinSky will fix this. Still curious about that procedure though. --W.carter 16:02, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • @W.carter: I'm sorry for my wrong translation: in german 'legal' also means that it just sticks by the current set of rules, not only in context to justice. I only have a faint memory of heaving read about such a procedure in my initial confused poking within commons to get the hang of it all. Btw: Thanks for your friendly help --PtrQs 16:21, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Hello @PumpkinSky: , as I suppose that the last version with strong orange bars was just an accidental fault within aggressive CA correction, I kindly beg you to correct this according to your own quality standards. It's a pity, that this slipped the eyes of several alert reviewers, but I think a smooth and amicable solution should be preferred here. --PtrQs (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Guten Abend @W.carter: and @PtrQs: . I honestly had to go looking for the orange bars. If you were talking about the orange on each side of the sun dial column, those are gone. I can't explain why I the others didn't notice it before. Maybe I thought thought they were variations in the color of the rocks. Anyway the bars alongside the sundial are gone now. Of interest is that I went there a week after taking this photo to see if I could take a better one and I couldn't because they were doing much needed repairs on the gazebo. PumpkinSky 19:05, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --W.carter 12:33, 13 August 2017 (UTC)