Commons talk:Quality images candidates

Perspective

Photography is so varied and creative. I would like to promote other perspectives and encourage you to simply look at objects in a different way. Objects are often photographed at eye level and people only look straight ahead. But there are so many possibilities. Here are a few categories:

• One-point perspective
• Three-point perspective
• Dutch angle
• Vanishing point
• Ground-level view
• Low-angle shots
• High-angle shots

--XRay 💬 17:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I have of course looked at Dutch Angle and unfortunately have to say that the vast majority of the pictures there show no design intention, but were simply taken at an angle. No, I am by no means a fan of forcibly verticalized architectural photography. Smial (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Smial. I have no issue promoting images with any of the mentioned perspectives if they are aesthetically pleasing - which often is the case if they are symmetric, say, a low-angle shot from a building that looks symmetric, where the building is completely visible and in the center. That can look better than these "forcibly verticalized" images. However, as Smial said, many of the examples in these categories seem to be quite random. Plozessor (talk) 04:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

In most categories the majority of the images is usually not QI material and show little design intention. The point is - a different perspective is often a reason for rejection at QI. And it shouldn't be, if the image is good and shows design intention. Kritzolina (talk) 05:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many images in the categories (and also in creative techniques) are too often not of good quality. Also, QIC was influenced by Wikipedia for too long and it was selected and rated accordingly. But that should be an incentive for us to try out other things. Of course, you should only photograph things that give you pleasure. But a look at other techniques and themes can always be helpful from time to time. In any case, I would be delighted if more good pictures were soon to be found in the apparently neglected categories. --XRay 💬 06:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Terminology

What is a CA? This is a term mentioned in a review I received.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 10:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

See here: Commons:Photography_terms#Chromatic_aberration. Plozessor (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 21:00, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Consensual review propriety

My October 4 nomination has had two reviewers. One was positive and one was negative. No decision has been made. When would it be appropriate to seek a consensual review.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@Acroterion and Wikisquack: , I am not sure if the reviewers have an opinion on this matter.-TonyTheTiger (talk) 20:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

You can ask for CR, that's what it's for. For my part I prefer the crop that was promoted, but others may disagree. Acroterion (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Acroterion, can both be QI, if both are in use?-TonyTheTiger (talk) 23:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger Both can be QI. They do not need to be used. However, I agree with @Acroterion, I prefer the crop that was promoted. -- Wikisquack (talk) 08:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

About your initial question, that situation shouldn't exists, only in rare cases it can happen as a result of edit conflicts. If an image already has a positive review, and someone disagrees, he should send it to CR, not add a negative review. --Plozessor (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Editing overly-long short descriptions

When submitting something for QI, the template asks to add a "very short description", but every now and then someone writes a description that's 100 words or more, creating a very lengthy entry in the process. Would it be alright for regular Commons users (meaning without special rights, like admins) to trim these down to a more reasonable size? ReneeWrites (talk) 12:35, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Good point. Nominators should put at least minimal effort in the descriptions. Not just go with the default, often including "This image was submitted as part of Wiki Loves overly long descriptions, licensed Creative Commons CC-BY SA 4.0 etc pp". Plozessor (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)