Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 11 2013

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

File:U-19 EC-Qualifikation Austria vs. France 2013-06-10 (059).jpg[edit]

U-19 EC-Qualifikation Austria vs. France 2013-06-10 (059).jpg

  • Nomination U-19 Austria vs. France: Marcel Sabitzer (SK Rapid Wien, red shirt) in duel with Larry Azouni (Olympique Marseille) --Steindy 21:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 20:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - distracting arm, CA, noisy, overexposed. VI maybe but not QI. Mattbuck 21:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Okay, next time I'll tell the player during the match, that he must not run into the picture. Where the image is overexposed, remains your secret. white and remains white because you can not change anything and the CA is designed. --Steindy 21:22, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
    No need to be snippy. Not every circumstance can yield a QI, and while I accept that sports photography is difficult, the fact remains that the arm spoils the composition and so means it is not QI. It happens. Mattbuck 21:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
    I'm not snippy, but you should know about you are wrtiting. Therefore I jave withdrawn my cendidate. According to your criteria, only some sports images are quality images. Once you look at a sports newspaper. --Steindy 22:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't quite know what you mean, but frankly the "only some (sports) images are quality images" applies to ANY subject. Mattbuck 22:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

File:U-19 EC-Qualifikation Austria vs. France 2013-06-10 (060).jpg[edit]

U-19 EC-Qualifikation Austria vs. France 2013-06-10 (060).jpg

  • Nomination U-19 Austria vs. France: Marcel Sabitzer (SK Rapid Wien, red shirt) in duel with Larry Azouni (Olympique Marseille) --Steindy 21:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 20:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - noisy, overexposed. VI maybe but not QI. Mattbuck 21:52, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Where the image is overexposed, remains your secret. white and remains white because you can not change anything. The noise comes from because it is a football match with fast movements and no stationary train at a railway station. --Steindy 21:28, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
    As above, I do not doubt that sports photography of this kind is difficult, and certain accommodations can be made, but basic things like avoiding overexposure are really not optional for QI. Mattbuck 21:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
    You should know about you are wrtiting. Therefore I jave withdrawn my cendidate. According to your criteria, only some sports images are quality images. Once you look at a sports newspaper. --Steindy 22:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Wetterkreuz_am_Schlern.jpg[edit]

Wetterkreuz am Schlern.jpg

  • Nomination Weather cross on the Schlern mountain. --Moroder 12:34, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too soft, especially the cross is out of focus --A.Savin 12:42, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is technically impossible with f/11, see the note. What is wrong with a photo beeing soft? IMO it's his beauty. Thanks for the comments anyway --Moroder 13:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose And not enough sharp --Christian Ferrer 18:41, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined A.Savin 16:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Prunella_vulgaris_-_harilik_käbihein.jpg[edit]

Prunella vulgaris - harilik käbihein.jpg

  • Nomination Common self-heal (Prunella vulgaris). --Iifar 19:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good. -- Trace 20:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ok, I don't want problems. The background is not noisy, but the flower has noise. The dof can be better (f:9, but 1/200). There are little but important areas overexposed. But I don't want problems (I can write notes about this). Not QI for me --Lmbuga 00:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm sure that I can't take pictures of plants betters than your excellents photos; but I'm sure that you can take better pictures than this--Lmbuga 00:14, 5 July 2013 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment 1/200 was because of wind, noise is imho at minimum level. I already did my best here. --Iifar 09:46, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg QI for me. Because of good quality and high encyclopedic value, good quality : -- Trace 13:48, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
    I hardly understand your point of view about overexposed areas : to me they are very very small, absolutely harmless, and the picture is detailed enough to help recognizing this species. So no doubt for me : QI !-- Trace 11:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
  • PLEASE DON'T WRITE IN MY WORDS ( your edition in my words has been reverted): A COMMENT IT'S A COMMENT, IT'S NOT A VOTE: RESPECT ME: Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral--Lmbuga 22:25, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
It was Iifar who voted and not me. See the link in his discussion page--Lmbuga 23:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Español: En mi opinión, debe ser bloqueado: No todo vale--Lmbuga 23:48, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
es No vuelvo a editar en las fotos de este individuo. Yo no soy nadie para decirle lo que él ha de hacer. Aún así, deseo aclarar que el hecho de que una foto permita reconocer perfectamente una planta no quiere decir que la foto sea VI, QI o FP. El razonamiento de Trace es absurdo, aunque probablemente bien intencionado: ¿Cuántas fotos de insectos han sido rechazadas viéndose claramente el insecto que es?,...--Lmbuga 02:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info This will be my last post on this page. Since I'm untrustworthy and bad person (who even needs to be blocked from using Commons), I will leave QIC page for good. Thank you all for your cooperation! --Iifar 14:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support For me its okay. --Steindy 22:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support The leaf at the bottom bothers me a bit. A tighter-cropped pic would have my unreserved support. Jastrow (Λέγετε) 09:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good. -- Smial 13:54, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted A.Savin 16:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Struttura molecolare di una zeolite.png[edit]

Struttura molecolare di una zeolite.png

  • Nomination Molecular structure of a zeolite -- Yiyi 23:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC) )
  • Promotion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'ld prefer an SVG-File here --Martin Kraft 08:24, 3 July 2013 (UTC
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support i prefer PNG, not SVG. This picture is good and QI. --Ralf Roletschek 11:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted A.Savin 16:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)