Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 02 2018

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

Consensual review[edit]


Morgan House Kalimpong 2.jpg]

  • Nomination Morgan House, Kalimpong--Subhrajyoti07 17:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is some ccw tilt, I think --Poco a poco 20:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - unable to detect a tilt. The photo was perspective corrected in PS. - Subhrajyoti07 02:29, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
The chimneys are not straight --Poco a poco 19:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Made some changes - Subhrajyoti07 15:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The chimneys were leaning in, now is worse. The change in the color is not convincing either, I didn't see any need for that. And last but not least, why did you clone out the white wire? I see no reason either to remove that --Poco a poco 20:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I have made some further readjustments and checked the chimneys with vertical guides. All of them are perfectly straight. If there is any further issue then its a construction defect and not a tilt issue. The local adjustment has been a bit overdone so I have taken that out. The while wire is a PVC pipe that conceals the wiring to the close circuit camera. A vintage building like this looks odd with that modern gadget and white was standing out like an eyesore. Infact I have masked out the camera also this time along with wires and cables hanging and dangling here and there. - Subhrajyoti07 18:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It needs a perspective correction IMO. Furthermore the trees in the background look overprocessed with blurry areas and halos. Move the image to CR if you like. --Poco a poco 18:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I agree about the trees. The house looks OK to me, though. What am I missing? -- Ikan Kekek 08:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No votes after all this time? Come on, let's vote. I think the perspective is off. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Peulle 09:57, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In my eyes this would be ok for QI, if the mysterious stripe on the left bottom is removed. --Milseburg 13:16, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Done - Subhrajyoti07 15:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok in my eyes. --Milseburg 12:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - The house is good and the file is big. I don't think issues with the trees are important enough for me to oppose. -- Ikan Kekek 02:32, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Peulle 13:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)


Cormorán africano (Microcarbo africanus), parque nacional de Chobe, Botsuana, 2018-07-28, DD 48.jpg

  • Nomination Reed cormorant (Microcarbo africanus), Chobe National Park, Botswana --Poco a poco 18:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Trougnouf 20:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm sorry, the head is too unsharp. --GerifalteDelSabana 00:07, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A pity, excellent composition, lighting etc., but the focus is on the wings, not on the head. --Smial 12:28, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Smial, but if you are able to sharpen the head sufficiently, maybe it still could be a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 07:50, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
    ✓ Sharpened a clear QI to me, please, consider that it's wild life and a 600 mm tele lens was used Poco a poco 18:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
N Downsampling is against the guidelines : "Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality." (here approx 14% regardless of the crop) -- Basile Morin 03:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Impressive rework, no disturbing artifacts added etc., so it still looks natural and it is now not perfect, but really good enough for QI. --Smial 21:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Smial, but it's a pitty, that the head is not perfectly sharp. Greetings --Dirtsc 08:48, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Indeed could have been good candidate for FP if the focus were precise. --Smial 00:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Very slight difference, so changing my vote would be inconsistent. I hear that this was a difficult subject to photograph, but is it always? -- Ikan Kekek 09:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per the official guidelines (images should not be sized down in order to appear of better quality). The focus is on the wings, not on the head -- Basile Morin 03:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
    Boring, you again with that recommendation and just with the purpose to make your point, as it didn't work out last time. --Poco a poco 21:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Jury nullification is not normally a good thing. Since you think downsizing is fine, it would be a lot better if you'd propose new language for QIC guidelines. -- Ikan Kekek 00:51, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree with Ikan. There's no favored treatment for Poco specified in the rules until now. And hiding this change in the comment of the new version is quite dishonest, too. Reducing the size and writing "sharpening, crop" only is like cheating. Illusion of sharpening, yes -- Basile Morin 01:09, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Sharpening is and has allways been an illusion. --Smial 11:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Dear Basile, from now on expect no 50 MPx images uploaded from this user (which was the only one, at least among the usuals), the community says you "thank you", you achieved your goal. --Poco a poco 11:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@Smial: sharpening also intensifies the noise, and that's not an illusion. But double dose of illusion, if you want, to fix a problem of focus, wow -- Basile Morin 13:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Dear Basile, probably you do not know much about sophisticated sharpening, and noise reduction methods. As mentioned above, poco has managed to sharpen this image without increasing noise or adding other typical artifacts. --Smial 14:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Very funny. It's so obvious no significant sharpening was applied here, but just a size reduction. Which means the real quality has actually decreased. Superimpose the two pictures as two layers at the same size on Photophop, then alternate both versions, and things become crystal clear. I know what is sharpening. Noise reduction is something else. But that's not really the problem here, since you don't make real sharpening by decreasing the size of an image. That trick works like the smoke of a magician. You just lose everywhere, and dont realize if your screen is not adapted. Fixing a focus problem with extra sharpening is like expecting a rework of the aperture in post-process : just nonsense. Pixels are not imaginary. Acutance is subjective, but the impression of edge contrast is not an illusion (when it's done). Now hearing the picture has been improved is the best joke ever. Even if a few users are fooled, but that's against the guidelines (exactly for this reason) -- Basile Morin 10:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Scaled down by about 5%. Well, this is of course a really dramatic violation of the "rules", which absolutely must be punished. --Smial 12:29, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
13,2% of the surface, yes, that's far enough to lose details. The new version is only 20,958 MP, compared to the first version 26,626 MP, that was 27,05% more. There's a crop of 14,9% of the surface. The rest is downsizing 13,2%. The wings were sharp in the first version, they're definitely worse after the fake "correction". Of course -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Scaling is a linear process. Do you print images in pixels per square inch, i.e. "90.000 dots/inch²"? Please ask the print service you trust. --Smial 11:03, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Format A4 is 100% bigger than A5. Original version was 13,2% bigger, here. Details have been lost. Loss visible with normal eyes. The quality has decreased. The guidelines have been violated. Like here and here. Greetings -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:57, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Basile, you already managed that I don't upload anymore images in full resolution in Commons, but please, stop your crusade and don't continously talk about violations, lies and death tolls. What for you seems to be the bible is for me a recommendation, and I'll act consequently. Poco a poco 15:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
N It's quite amazing Poco understands so wrong, showing no good will, and becoming very unreasonable. Did I say anything against the upload of high resolution files ? Exactly the opposite. I request the best resolution images for QI, and not the downsized version. This is also respecting the excellent recommendations written for all in the guidelines. Poco not only ignores them, but also makes wrong interpretations. Really unwise. Like absurd blackmail for the sake of the "community". Hope one day all these unfair QI templates on Poco's downsized pictures will be removed by consensual decision. I voted -- Basile Morin (talk) 00:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
The community seems to have given permission to certain users to downsize at will. -- Ikan Kekek 00:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Exactly, favoritism. And no consensus on this. As you said, "People are wrong to accept the direct, open violation of the rule". But crying "boooh they don't want me to upload in full resolution" is comically ridiculous -- Basile Morin (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Favoritism? This is a serious accusation that cannot be substantiated by anything. Have a look at my vote at the other candidate by Poco. --Smial 11:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
There are also sockpuppets voting against themselves to gain credibility. Justice outside doesn't make this case fairer. Once the other pictures will be downsampled, some opposers will change their votes like weather vanes. Because special users are allowed here to infringe the rules. Officially "do not do that", but in practice do selfishly. "When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator". The same guidelines. Means not the same -- Basile Morin 15:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Jetzt wird es so langsam unverschämt. Was genau an "but in this case not fixable." ist unverständlich? Was genau bewegt dich, meine Bewertungen in einen Zusammenhang mit Sockenpuppen zu stellen? An welcher Stelle genau handle ich egoistisch? Ich bin hier raus. Unglaublich. --Smial 16:34, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Très bonne idée. Enjoy the film. The same guidelines. "Should not be sized down". Consensual agreement. Fair way to judge. This is snake oil -- Basile Morin 00:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK 4 me. --Palauenc05 07:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support riesiges Bild, klar QI --Ralf Roletschek 16:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Need some popcorn... --A.Savin 21:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Feed in peanuts -- Basile Morin 00:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Peulle 12:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)