Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 18 2015

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Monasterio_de_San_Martín,_Santiago_de_Compostela,_España,_2015-09-23,_DD_11.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination San Martin Monastery, Santiago de Compostela, Spain --Poco a poco 10:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Unnatural geometric correction, poor lighting, top of building blurry -- Alvesgaspar 16:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I have adjusted the ratio (new version uploaded), maybe now it is not so unnatural as you affirm. The lighting comment is not acceptable as a criteria to reject a QI. I would understand it if half of it would be in shadow but it isn't the case. The top looks sharp enough to me. Please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 19:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness at the top could be better, but IMO still QI. --XRay 07:14, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I have inserted two notes in the image. If those parts are indeed ok, our QIC bar is indeed dropping steadily to the gorund... Alvesgaspar 11:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Neutral You're right. Sorry. These part are blurred, too much for QI. --XRay 12:27, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 22:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Palacio_Real,_Madrid,_España,_2014-12-27,_DD_10.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Royal Palace, Madrid, Spain --Poco a poco 10:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Obviously overexposed. I don't want to be disrespectful Poco, and we all know how skilled and talented you are. But looking at the unfortunate five images nominated today I wonder if some message for QIC is intended. -- Alvesgaspar 11:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
     Comment I don't really understand what you want do say, maybe you could state it clearly. If you don't believe that these 5 images are QI, decline them and provide a reason. What I cannot share is that you decline because you believe it is overexposed, isn't it something everybody here can fix during the sleep?. I've uploaded a new version. --Poco a poco 15:46, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
     Comment I will make it clear: I fear that you are nominating below standard images on purpose (or not properly treated) in order to make the point that it is perfectly all right to correct pictures while in QIC. The alternatives are that you are not being careful enough with the pictures you chose or want to lower the QIC bar for some reason. Sending to CR, so that other people can join the discussion. -- Alvesgaspar 16:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
     Comment I will answer it clearly: I don't try to get QIs through with problems on purpose BUT IT IS PERFECTLY RIGHT TO CORRECT PICTURES IN QIC. It always was and should be. Doing that is not aligned with one of our most important guidelines and will collapse the CR section, which requires much more effort from the commnity to process the QICs. Poco a poco 19:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --XRay 07:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support--Ermell 14:39, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 19:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment It is not by chance that this part of QIC is called Consensual Review. It is supposed to be the place where the merits and demerits of the candidate images are discussed. This is certainly not a poll or a popularity contest. If I'm wrong, or just too harsh in my reviews, please explain why. Alvesgaspar 09:11, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 22:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Palacio_de_Rajoy,_Santiago_de_Compostela,_España,_2015-09-23,_DD_53.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Palace of Raxoi, Santiago de Compostela, Spain --Poco a poco 10:36, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Unnatiral geometry, poor lighting, subject blurry on the right. Alvesgaspar 16:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
     Comment What means unnatural geometry, the part which is further is smaller than the part which is closer, is that a problem, and the vertical correction on the top is not distorted. I have uploaded a new version with lower resolution to address your sharpness concerns. Please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 19:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Not easy to take but IQ for me.--Ermell 14:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 19:20, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment It is not by chance that this part of QIC is called Consensual Review. It is supposed to be the place where the merits and demerits of the candidate images are discussed. This is certainly not a poll or a popularity contest. If I'm wrong, or just too harsh in my reviews, please explain why. Alvesgaspar 09:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 22:04, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Goura_cristata_(Goura_couronné)_-_Caloenas_nicobarica_(Nicobar_à_camail)_-_367.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Goura cristata (Western Crowned Pigeon) left and Caloenas nicobarica (Nicobar Pigeon) right at ZooParc Beauval in Saint-Aignan-sur-Cher, France. --Medium69 13:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Nice resolution, good sharpness. Framing acceptable. All in all good quality, congratulations! --Hendric Stattmann 18:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Just not sharp enough and composition is poor. Charlesjsharp 18:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor composition, image too cluttered. Alvesgaspar 10:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 22:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)