Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 09 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:2017-11-29-Andreas_Hollstein_Up-Maischberger-5669.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Altena's Mayor Andreas Hollstein in German TV-Show "Maischberger" --Superbass 17:16, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Your camera is capable of higher resolutions; do you have one available?--Peulle 18:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I do not upload higher Resolutions of many portraits. In my opinion, if you magnify a person's face several times, you violate his or her personal rights. An encyclopaedic portrait is not about skin pores and body hairs, that's why I reduce the size of portraits before the upload in many cases. --~~~~
  •  Comment You may be right when it comes to the encyclopedic value, but that's what we have VIC for. This is QIC and only the image quality is evaluated here. As this is needlessly downsampled, I must  Oppose per the QI Guidelines' image size guideline.--Peulle 11:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support gut und groß genug --Ralf Roletschek 22:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The guidelines for "what can be uploaded here" and "what is considered a Quality Image" overlap but are different. --RaboKarbakian 14:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. I would prefer four MPixels or more, but this portrait is good enough. --Smial 15:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me.--Ermell 20:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --PumpkinSky 12:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Kvamskogen_tunliweb_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Winter at Kvamskogen, Norway. By User:Smtunli --Vivo 20:21, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Downsampled. Please upload a larger version.--Peulle 21:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 Not done PumpkinSky 19:37, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support groß genug --Ralf Roletschek 22:43, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Question - What should we do in this kind of case? It's a small file but it's beautiful. -- Ikan Kekek 05:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I  Oppose, as I can see no good reason why such a nature shot should be reduced in size. --Peulle 08:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Peulle and QIC guidelines. --Basotxerri 10:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Images of this kind should have at least four MPixels, better six or more, so they can be printed in high quality at letter size (or A4). The hard limit of two MPixels is nowadays intended for special cases, which have difficult circumstances, i.e. in sports photography, images of shy animals in free nature, extreme low light conditions etc. --Smial 15:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC) Ps: nice shot, though.
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --PumpkinSky 12:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)