Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 25 2017

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:17-07-21-Heiliger_See_Sandkrug-DSCF6052.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Großer Heiliger See bei Sandkrug, Chorin in der Nähe von Eberswalde --Ralf Roletschek 20:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality -- Spurzem 20:30, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Category not fixed. Where is the lake? Brandenburg is big. --A.Savin 20:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Es steht in der Bildbeschreibung. -- Spurzem 20:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Die Geokoordinaten sind fast auf den Meter genau. Aber das ist wohl nicht genau genug. --Ralf Roletschek 21:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 14:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Light_dispersion_conceptual_waves.gif

[edit]

  • Nomination Light dispersion in a prism --Geek3 15:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Sadly, the resolution is below the 2 megapixel minimum requirement for QI. There is an exception: This rule exclude images computer generated and constructed using a free licensed source code available in the image description. Somebody tell me if that's the case. --Peulle 21:16, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support See my reply on the other gif at CR. Please don't 'oppose' just because you are uncertain about how to judge a photo, ask instead. If no one had caught this, it would have been washed out needlessly. --W.carter 10:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Yes, I was actually planning to move this to CR today, both images should be judged the same way.--Peulle 13:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Nice and good but I wish the resolution was better. Should be possible as it seems to be computer-generated. --Basotxerri 05:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Each image in the gif could surely be generated in a larger size, but not the resulting gif. You always have do reduce the image size if you are making a gif with a lot of images or the software won't be able to keep up with it. This is a 90 images gif, hence the smaller size. See my reply below on "File:Rolling_Racers_-_Moment_of_inertia.gif". --W.carter 09:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, I think you're right, I didn't think about the animation smoothness. --Basotxerri 12:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Maybe this is the kind of image that could have been done into a bigger one by making a video file?--Peulle 13:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, there are those who want us to abandon gifs for videos, but in an article I think that a gif such as this, streaming out rays continuously, looks way cooler than some video link with a big ugly "play arrow" stamped right on it. In the best of worlds we would have both the gif for articles and a larger video for presentations larger than a computer screen. --W.carter 21:12, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Totally agree from such a perspective - that's more relevant for a VIC discussion, though; in QIC I still think I'd prefer a video since it's about quality and not just usefulness.--Peulle 15:16, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --W.carter 09:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Malabar_lark_Galerida_malabarica_from_Kaas_Plateau_DSC3236.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Malabar lark Galerida malabarica from Kaas Plateau --PJeganathan 09:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 22:16, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I edit conflicted this promotion...I was declining it because of the composition/crop...One's eyes are drawn to the blurry flowers, not the bird, which is too low in the photo. I've tagged for discussion. PumpkinSky 22:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Those flowers are kept in the frame essentially to show the habitat and especially the Kaas Plateau which is a world heritage site and known for Smithia flowers. Just by looking at the flowers one can (people who know these landscapes) roughly say from where the image was taken--PJeganathan 09:38, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with PumpkinSky regarding the crop; I also feel that it is over-saturated and possibly too dark; I have uploaded a possible edit here: --Alandmanson 12:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
    • I could support the alternate. PumpkinSky 12:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
      • Thanks for this Alandmanson. Do I have to repeat what you did with the image and upload it again? or no need? --PJeganathan 18:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
        • No need to repeat (although you or others may prefer a different crop or colour adjustment), but submission of the edit would presumably be needed if you want QI assessment.--Alandmanson 05:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
          • My suggestion, let this nom get declined. Upload a cropped version like Alandmanson's but bring the crop in so the two yellow flowers on the right can't be seen. Upload it either as a separate file or as a mod of the current nom. PumpkinSky 20:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --W.carter 09:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

File:MGA 1600 Coupé (2017-07-01 Sp).JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination MG A 1600 Coupé from 1959/60 at “Europa Klassik” in Andernach on the Rhine -- Spurzem 20:43, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 20:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Category still not fixed --A.Savin 21:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @A.Savin: Sagen Sie bitte endlich, was Sie haben wollen. Es muss etwas sein, wofür sich außer Ihnen niemand interessiert; aber ich möchte es wissen. -- Spurzem 22:22, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment The category should have all necessary parent categories; that are to be related to the city, the event, the year. Otherwise no one can find the category and, as a result, the photo either. See COM:Categories (there is German version) --A.Savin 22:44, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I did. So what? --A.Savin 11:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO OK, categories too. --XRay 10:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support alle notwendigen Kategorien vorhanden. --Ralf Roletschek 15:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support It was properly categorized. The existence of a thorough parent category hierarchy must not be part of a QI discussion. -- DerFussi 07:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 15:20, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Rolling_Racers_-_Moment_of_inertia.gif

[edit]

  • Nomination 3D animation for moments of inertia --Geek3 15:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 15:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for discussion; it's below the 2MP limit - does it hit the exception in the guidelines? "This rule exclude images computer generated and constructed using a free licensed source code available in the image description."--Peulle 21:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Most QI and FP gifs are well below 2MP simply because they are many pictures stacked. Most normal software can't even produce complicated gifs as big as 2MP and the wiki software also distort the color in large gifs when they are shown in thumb. Please take a look at Commons:Featured pictures/Animated, one of the gif FPs there is only 280 × 233 pixels. If you are uncertain about how to judge a photo, it is always good to have a look at the corresponding FP category, many of those are also QIs. --W.carter 08:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
So we judge them individually as we would any other picture? A gif of 10 x 10 pxl I would consider too small to offer sufficient detail, but we can promote gifs that have sufficient detail even when below 2MP? This one is borderline, IMO; I would have liked it to be a bit larger so we could see better what was going on.--Peulle 13:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
This is actually a rather complicated gif, it is made up from 105 images whereas most normal good gifs are made up of 10-35 images. That is why it has to be made this small. When judging a gif, you need to look at both the "picture" like any normal photo but also look at how many images it is composed of and how it displays on the screen. The movement should be smooth and not jerk around too much. You can compare this QI gif with this non-QI gif. In the jellyfish gif you can see how the color becomes distorted when viewed in anything but full size, it is probably almost too big for a proper gif QI since you have to click for full size view to see it at its best. Most veiwers don't bother doing that with gifs. --W.carter 13:43, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
OK I'm convinced. There's another one of these coming, let's judge it the same way.--Peulle 21:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support --Frze 08:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support --W.carter 08:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --W.carter 09:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Kreidler Eigenbau, Cockpit (2017-06-11 Sp).JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Cockpit of self built racing motorcycle based on Kreidler -- Spurzem 13:15, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 13:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Category still not fixed --A.Savin 21:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support --Frze 08:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 15:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support -- DerFussi 07:52, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 15:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Common_brimstone_(Gonepteryx_rhamni)_female_Estonia.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Common brimstone (Gonepteryx rhamni) female, Estonia --Charlesjsharp 22:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Vengolis 00:47, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Low quality image, sorry. Blown white and unsharp, especially on head -- George Chernilevsky 15:13, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment New version uploaded. Charlesjsharp 20:59, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 08:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support -- DerFussi 09:15, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 15:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

File:Frappé.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination greek Frappé --Kritzolina 05:28, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment chromatic aberrations need removing. Also:  Question is the glass really bent in that shape?--Peulle 19:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment The glass is really bent in that shape. But regarding the chromatic aberrations: since I pride myself in having QIs that are not tampered with, I will just let it go. --Kritzolina 04:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose OK, that's a pity since it's a nice image - declining then because of the CA on top of the straw.--Peulle 12:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Despite a minor flaw still QI 4 me. --Palauenc05 16:39, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO the CA is very, very slight, OK for me. --Basotxerri 07:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support As Basotxerri -- Spurzem 08:28, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support --Ralf Roletschek 20:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hey, @W.carter: , remember to change "Discussion" to "Promotion" when executing these decisions ... ;-P --Peulle 15:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Ooops! --W.carter 15:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --W.carter 09:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)