Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 04 2019

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:20180924_UCI_Road_World_Championships_Innsbruck_Women_Juniors_ITT_Jasmine_Soh_DSC_7535.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination 2018 UCI Road World Championships Innsbruck/Tirol Women Juniors Individual Time Trial. Picture shows: Jasmine Soh (USA) --Granada 11:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Visible artifacts on the left leg (too aggressive de-noising?) --Jacek79 15:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support [Can't vote for your own photo at QIC -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)] No denoising used at all. Maybe some quite intentionally taken motion blur (it's a sports photo) --Granada 15:31, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
    Sorry for that pro-notation, I don't know how it found it's way in there. I've just set the image to discuss per QIC-Voter like the other one. --Granada (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 00:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  SupportOk for me. --Isiwal 08:35, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Support Denoising artifacts, if any at all, are very, very minor, as far as I can see. --Johannes Robalotoff 09:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Basotxerri 16:48, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

File:20180924_UCI_Road_World_Championships_Innsbruck_Women_Juniors_ITT_Giorgia_Bariani_DSC_7579.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination 2018 UCI Road World Championships Innsbruck/Tirol Women Juniors Individual Time Trial. Picture shows: Giorgia Bariani (ITA) --Granada 07:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose This one is not very sharp --Podzemnik 10:04, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  CommentThe face is a bit soft, regarding the high resolution imo OK for QI.--Isiwal
  •  Support - I agree. Good quality at 3x the size of my 13-inch laptop. -- Ikan Kekek 09:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - As mentioned in my comment above. --Isiwal 08:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
     Support per Isiwal. And the overall impression is really very good, so the minor softness of the face is not important IMHO. --Aristeas 11:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Basotxerri 16:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Kenya_chikhalidwe.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Marafa-Hells Kitchen (Malindi) --E.3 06:28, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ercé 06:37, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry but I don't think the quality is good enough for QI --Podzemnik 08:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Details lost by aggressive noise reduction. --Johannes Robalotoff 18:00, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Podzemnik. -- Ikan Kekek 21:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Would be a very interesting image, but the quality is unfortunately not sufficient. --Aristeas 11:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Basotxerri 16:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Rue_Pierre_de_Blois_in_Blois_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Rue Pierre de Blois in Blois, Loir-et-Cher, France. --Tournasol7 00:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 04:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oversharpening artifacts (halos) at full resolution. Top of chimney on the left shows a slightly offset ghost image. --Johannes Robalotoff 17:54, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Support --Moroder 21:46, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support IMHO quite good, the oversharping artifacts are not disturbing, overall impression is fine. --Aristeas 11:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Basotxerri 16:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Cow_mooing_in_Karawanks,_Slovenia.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cow mooing in Karawanks, Slovenia --Podzemnik 08:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality. --MB-one 10:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
     Oppose Looks oversaturated, and the DoF is shallow.--Peulle 13:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    I reduced the saturation. Considerign DoF, it's kind OK for me, the main thing here for me is the cow's mouth and it's quite sharp. Let's see what other folks think --Podzemnik 15:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
     Support per comment immediately above. Poor cow, with all those flies on her(?) face! But is it really a cow and not a bull or steer, with those horns? (I know some cows have horns.) -- Ikan Kekek 19:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
    I'm pretty sure it's a cow. There was a bunch of them and as you can see here, it's got horns and an udder (it's a different cow but the same group and it shows horns and an udder at the same time :). --Podzemnik 17:49, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
     Oppose Too small part of the image in focus. --Johannes Robalotoff 21:35, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Eyes should be within DOF. --Smial 02:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. --Palauenc05 14:33, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Basotxerri 16:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Paris_Motor_Show_2018,_Paris_(1Y7A1246).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Nissan Micra at Mondial de l’Automobile de Paris 2018 --MB-one 10:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:24, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For a quality picture, the roof and windshield are too bright. In addition, the advertising inscriptions are very disturbing. And what is that part at the right front wheel? Please discuss. -- Spurzem 17:26, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good quality in my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek 11:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Random composition, somewhat low DOF, distracting background. --Smial 11:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support o.k. for QI in think.--Ermell 09:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  •  Oppose overloaded in the background, Vanneau Asocial 18:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Basotxerri 16:40, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_de_San_Pedro_de_los_Francos,_Calatayud,_España,_2018-03-28,_DD_26.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination The Crowning with Thorns and Veronica Procession on Maundy Thursday, St Peter of Los Francos Church, Holy Week in Calatayud, Spain. --Poco a poco 11:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Fitindia 13:18, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
     OpposeBased on the nominator's interpretation of QI criteria this must be rejected because of the bottom crop --Charlesjsharp 11:02, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
    based on Ikan Kekek's votes. Charlesjsharp 16:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment This edit could be used as an example of the definition of a revenge vote. --Poco a poco 12:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Indeed it could, as could the edit on my chameleon. Please just answer my issue with your oppose and normal harmony can immediately be resumed. Charlesjsharp 13:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good quality. The rest of that rectangular box (whatever the technical term for it is) is not necessary or important for the composition. -- Ikan Kekek 11:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support – Good quality IMHO, a nice image. --Aristeas 11:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Basotxerri 16:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Abgestumpfte_Stachelschnecke_Hexaplex_trunculus.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Hexaplex trunculus --Holleday 05:36, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --MB-one 05:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
    downsampled? --Charlesjsharp 10:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
     Comment
    Hello, please have a look at my comment at the picture File:(Garden Cross Spider)_Araneus_diadematus.jpg from 22.12. (Quality images)--Holleday 18:03, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
Can you link the page? I'm trying to link a page showing that there was no search result for that file, but doing that makes this entire discussion invisible, somehow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:06, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support GQ --Palauenc05 09:05,
  •  Oppose not sharp enough; no response to question. Charlesjsharp 12:44, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Question - I don't know how to judge the sharpness. Holleday, how big was this specimen? -- Ikan Kekek 22:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Provisional  Oppose, pending a clear response. The creature does look somewhat unsharp, but if it's a very small one, I'd judge it differently. According to Wikipedia, they range from 4-10 cm long, so that's quite a significant difference. -- Ikan Kekek 06:24, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment-Hello, now I find time to answer. The left snail shell measures 2.8 cm. The answer to the topic "downsampled" by Charlesjsharp is easy to answer: I take many photos during the year. I scale these images to 2000 x 3000 pixels to keep the amount of data on my computer as small as possible. Then I delete the original photo. When I find some time and have some pictures that I think might be interesting for the wiki project, I upload them to the wiki portal (such as rare or unusual species). Unfortunately, I don't have the time to quickly answer questions in the featured pictures, quality images, and valued images sections. Unfortunately, I can't create new categories or do complex image editing. It is not so important to me that my pictures are featured pictures, quality images or valued images. Therefore it is OK for me not to add more pictures in these areas in the future to avoid inconsistencies like this. Many greetings --Holleday 15:37, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Don't do that. Wikis are meant to involve discussion. Thanks for addressing these things.  Support - good quality, in view of the size of the snail. -- Ikan Kekek 16:13, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I have to say it's crazy to downsize every image when storage is so inexpensive. If you happen to take a great image, then the opportunity to showcase it will be lost for ever. For what it's worth, I delete all the obvious during the day when I have a few moments or at night. Charlesjsharp 22:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 11:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)