Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 01 2016

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Foreigner_-_Wacken_Open_Air_2016_26.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Foreigner beim Wacken Open Air 2016. By User:Huhu Uet --Achim Raschka 05:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • {{Comment}} and {{o}} It is completely inappropriate to threaten potential users with immediate legal action. Just because it is a community-sponsored project, you should use CC-BY-SA-4.0 here. Thanks for your kind understanding, Wikipedia should be and remain as a friendly place! --Hubertl 10:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Support now, thanks for changing the Template, Achim Raschka and Huhu Uet! --Hubertl 15:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Es ist unangebracht, hier Lizenzpolitik zu betreiben --Ralf Roletschek 10:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment Bitte erweitere deinen Horizont etwas, Ralf. Hier gehts um mehr! --Hubertl 15:56, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose License is fine, but the quality is not. Face not in focus + motion blur around the microphone. --A.Savin 13:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Again very slight overexposure, but very good composition. --Smial 15:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Hubertl 06:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 04:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Ritual_Day_-_Wacken_Open_Air_2016_07.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Ritual Day beim Wacken Open Air 2016. By User:Huhu Uet --Achim Raschka 06:38, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Smial 10:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • {{Comment}} and {{o}} It is completely inappropriate to threaten potential users with immediate legal action. Just because it is a community-sponsored project, you should use CC-BY-SA-4.0 here. Thanks for your kind understanding, Wikipedia should be and remain as a friendly place! --Hubertl 10:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild  Support - I don't understand this whole business about the license. The terms look totally fine to me. I also think this photo is striking enough that marginal concerns of focus, possibly blown highlights and crops might fairly give way to considering the photo as a whole to be of good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 05:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The license is fine, Hubertl is the only one who seems to have a problem with it. The image, however, is not a QI as there are artefacts under the nose and soft focus all over the person's head. --Peulle 11:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Support now, thanks for changing the Template, Achim Raschka and Huhu Uet! --Hubertl 15:51, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 04:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Fear_Factory_–_Reload_Festival_2016_08.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fear Factory at Reload Festival 2016 in Sulingen. By User:Huhu Uet --Achim Raschka 07:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Haeferl 02:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • {{Comment}} and {{o}}: It is completely inappropriate to threaten potential users with immediate legal action. Just because it is a community-sponsored project, you should use CC-BY-SA-4.0 here. Thanks for your kind understanding, Wikipedia should be and remain as a friendly place! --Hubertl 10:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment The license CC-BY-SA-3.0 which is used here is fine; people are allowed to use this image for free as long as they credit the author, this is not unusual on Commons. Hubertl should check the License page. When I evaluate the photo, however, I think this is too noisy to be a QI, therefore  Oppose.--Peulle 13:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Mild  Oppose per Peulle. User:Huhu Uet, please denoise the photo, and then I'd be happy to support, as apart from the noise, I like it very much. -- Ikan Kekek 05:55, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Wahmstraße 37 (Lübeck-Altstadt).Giebel.ajb.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Gable of building Wahmstraße 37 in Lübeck. --Ajepbah 06:02, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality: sorry, but the stated main subject (the gable) is unsharp. --Peulle 12:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Peulle: The main subject is the complete brick part of the facade, not only the pediment. --Ajepbah 17:33, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 Comment The image title and description say otherwise.--Peulle 16:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 Comment I disagree ;-) This is a complete view of the facade => brick = gable. Illustrate this (brick) part of facade is intended with filename and description (compare with adjoining buildings) --Ajepbah 17:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 Comment Sorry, I remain unconvinced that this is a QI. Feel free to take it to CR if you disagree.--Peulle 21:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you for review - I've now uploaded a new, sharpened version and changed to CR --Ajepbah 22:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment - Please sharpen further, as I dislike the uppermost window and would oppose a promotion right now. -- Ikan Kekek 05:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree, the top of the building still looks distorted. I don't think this is fixable.--Peulle 09:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @Ikan Kekek: New version with further sharpened pediment. I think, the building is distorted (built in 1557) --Ajepbah 22:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Ajepbah. I consider this a QI now.  Support -- Ikan Kekek 04:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, it's better.--Peulle 08:34, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --A.Savin 04:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

File:St John Gijon Washington September 2016-1a.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination San Juan de la Cruz, by Francisco Antonio Gijón (1675). National Gallery of Art, Washington. -- Alvesgaspar 11:46, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Needs alternative process with less noise on background, plus categories are to be fixed (as always, no mention of the city / the museum) --A.Savin 14:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support. QI for me. -- Spurzem 13:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - Alvesgaspar, I think you can do better. Please decrease the glare and sharpen just a bit, and then I'll be glad to vote to promote the picture. The categories look OK to me. What's lacking, A.Savin? -- Ikan Kekek 06:11, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: The cooperation by Alvesgaspar is lacking, I'm afraid. --A.Savin 13:07, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I mean what categories are lacking? -- Ikan Kekek 13:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The categories seems sufficient at the moment --A.Savin 13:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose wall is killing --PetarM 06:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Кварц вольфрамит.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Quartz-Wolframite. Minerals from Kazakhstan. --SKas 21:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality: sorry, DoF too shallow for a studio shot, leaving several parts out of focus. --Peulle 23:11, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough. --Yann 23:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support as Yann. --Hubertl 08:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Because of blurring and glare, I can't see some details toward the bottom right of the crystal. Because of the blurring of salient details of the subject, I don't think this is a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 10:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support OK. --A.Savin 12:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose at least the left tip of the cristal should be on focus because that is where our sight is driven. Alvesgaspar 18:29, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Could be more in focus. --PetarM 06:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)