Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 11 2020

Consensual review

edit

File:Bremer_Pferdebahn_23_beim_Rathaus.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Horse-drawn tramcar (built in 1888) in Bremen --Jacek79 21:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Stepro 00:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Areas with CAs (see the notes) that should be removed. Please fix the image before promotion to QI. --Halavar 07:48, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  CommentThe reddish artifact on the weather vane is _not_ CA, but rather a slight lens flare caused by the vane's strong reflection. --Jacek79 20:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  Comment Looks better. You fixed 2 areas with CAs, but still my opinion is that image is not a QI at this moment. That reddish flare doesn't look good and second thing is that you washed out colors in that fixed image. I think we need more opinions. --Halavar 21:33, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support--Moroder 01:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 11:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Puffing_Billy_Trackside_Plant.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination A plant viewed from Puffing Billy Railway. --Vincent60030 17:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --MB-one 10:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The grass looks like someone painted it. Please discuss --Podzemnik 02:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Podzemnik. Also the categories need improving.--Peulle 06:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: It was not easy taking this picture when the train was moving. Yes, it was taken from a train. Vincent60030 17:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Do any of you know what plant it is so that I can improve the categories? Or any suggestions? I'm out of ideas. Vincent60030 18:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Well there's this...--Peulle 06:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Quality seems OK to me, but categories do need to be improved for QI. -- Ikan Kekek 12:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Ikan Kekek Hi there! I’ve improved the category when the suggestion was added. Do you have a better suggestion? Quite new to image category tagging so I’ll need a little more insight. Thank you! --Vincent60030 13:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • You need to find out what trees and shrubs are pictured and use their specific categories. I can't help you with those identifications, but they're needed for QI. People have posted before about boards where you can post a photo and ask for help with such identifications, but I don't remember the specifics. Could anyone please advise Vincent? -- Ikan Kekek 14:20, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I have tried reverse search on Google meanwhile. It returned Thuja but I doubt it is that species. However, I'll add the picture into the category for now. --Vincent60030 17:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Specific species or at least genuses are needed, though. -- Ikan Kekek 08:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Thuja is a genus. Vincent60030 06:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment OK, but I see at least 3 types of plants (not counting the grass, which is not important to categorize), and "shrubs" is not a good category for QI, because it's too general. -- Ikan Kekek 08:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I see. I wasn’t aware that other plants not focused in the picture need to be categorised too. I’ll take a look at what I can find. --Vincent60030 09:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Within reason. I'd want the categories for the most prominent trees/shrubs in the photo included. -- Ikan Kekek 12:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek: I have finished adding the categories. Hope you like it :D Vincent60030 20:18, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Awesome, and I disagree with some comments about the quality. The quality is IMO OK. -- Ikan Kekek 01:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose whatever floral categories you may find for this, I fear the lacking sharpness cannot compensate for the missing composition. The what-ever bushes melt into the same-color background, both not distinguishable by sharpness. A picture by smart phone from a passing vehicle is likely to look like a snapshot. --PtrQs (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough to be printed to A4 or letter size. If pixel peeping: Somewhat to strong noise reduction, but not disturbing if viewed in usual size. I can not see composition issues. --Smial 10:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose with PtrQs --Augustgeyler 02:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 11:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)