Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 28 2014

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Dome_of_S.Peter_in_night.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Dome of S.Peter in the night --Livioandronico2013 11:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    Good but tilted in ccw direction Poco a poco 11:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks Diego --Livioandronico2013 11:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    The top crop is now too tight Poco a poco 11:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    See now Diego --Livioandronico2013 11:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 11:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    •  Comment Too many overexposed parts. -Kadellar 16:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good for me. -- Spurzem 12:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Kadellar, and to many jpeg compression artifacts.--Jebulon 18:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me.--Hubertl 16:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Code 18:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Livioandronico2013 09:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Cortaderia December 2014-2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Pampas Grass (Cortaderia selloana). Gulbenkian Garden, Lisboa. -- Alvesgaspar 19:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 19:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • There is an existing category for this place, please use it before a promotion --Christian Ferrer 16:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose until it’s fixed.
  • To put photos of plants or animals in the category of the garden where you took these photos is very relevant and essential if you know it. A garden or a park contains plants, a category for this garden contains images of these plants. Logic, isn’t it? I have even been kind enough to you to find this category. It's one of the rules here for all of us, when a file has the adequate information so it must be correctly categorized accordingly. (final comments from me for this nomination, maybe see you later on your next nominations…) --Christian Ferrer 20:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I respectfully disagree and have inserted what I consider to be a better category. The same solution was adopted for pictures in botanical gardens, like in here. You comment that we might see you in my next nominations sounds like a threat and is not elegant. Alvesgaspar 10:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The creation of this category is a very good thing, I congratulate you for this initiative and congratulate even myself for my perceverance that bears its fruits. So I promise I'll follow with great attention all your future nominations for that continues this successful teamwork. Hope it's more elegant, and hope you will continue your effort your efforts on categorization of your images, see you soon Alvesgaspar --Christian Ferrer 12:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Question Two straws are overexposed. Can you fix it? --Steindy 10:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, they are overexposed but little can be done about it except making the white grey. But the trick won't bring the details back. Alvesgaspar 11:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support --Hubertl 16:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose For me its disturbing, but I respect other votes. --Steindy 13:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment The little overexposure can be fixed, the blackness can be brightened and the contrast can be reduced. From the raw-file it's no problem. Also a bit sharpening --Hockei 11:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Livioandronico2013 09:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Cotoneaster December 2014-1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fruits and leaves of Cotoneaster lacteus -- Alvesgaspar 19:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 00:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • There is an existing category for this place, please use it before a promotion --Christian Ferrer 16:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose until it’s fixed.
  • To put photos of plants or animals in the category of the garden where you took these photos is very relevant and essential if you know it. A garden or a park contains plants, a category for this garden contains images of these plants. Logic, isn’t it? I have even been kind enough to you to find this category. It's one of the rules here for all of us, when a file has the adequate information so it must be correctly categorized accordingly. (final comments from me for this nomination, maybe see you later on your next nominations…) --Christian Ferrer 20:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I respectfully disagree and have inserted what I consider to be a better category. The same solution was adopted for pictures in botanical gardens, like in here. You comment that we might see you in my next nominations sounds like a threat and is not elegant. Alvesgaspar 10:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The creation of this category is a very good thing, I congratulate you for this initiative and congratulate even myself for my perceverance that bears its fruits. So I promise I'll follow with great attention all your future nominations for that continues this successful teamwork. Hope it's more elegant, and hope you will continue your effort your efforts on categorization of your images, see you soon Alvesgaspar --Christian Ferrer 12:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Christmas, this is the beginning of a long lasting friendship :-P --Hubertl 17:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 11:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Livioandronico2013 09:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Bamboo December 2014-1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Fishpole Bamboo. Gulbenkian Garden, Lisboa -- Alvesgaspar 19:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • There is an existing category for this place, please use it before a promotion --Christian Ferrer 16:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC) -- I'm sending it to CR.
  • Not a good practise to use QIC to make a point! -- Alvesgaspar 18:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe but you nominated, I cite the nomination sentence : Fishpole Bamboo. Gulbenkian Garden, Lisboa. You took photos in this garden, I don't see why you'll be exempt from precisely categorize your photos. Why this category exist, if it's not for to put the images taken in it? And you're the first here that refers to something other than the nomination of this picture. --Christian Ferrer 18:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose until it’s fixed.
  • To put photos of plants or animals in the category of the garden where you took these photos is very relevant and essential if you know it. A garden or a park contains plants, a category for this garden contains images of these plants. Logic, isn’t it? I have even been kind enough to you to find this category. It's one of the rules here for all of us, when a file has the adequate information so it must be correctly categorized accordingly. (final comments from me for this nomination, maybe see you later on your next nominations…) --Christian Ferrer 20:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I respectfully disagree and have inserted what I consider to be a better category. The same solution was adopted for pictures in botanical gardens, like in here. You comment that we might see you in my next nominations sounds like a threat and is not elegant. Alvesgaspar 10:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The creation of this category is a very good thing, I congratulate you for this initiative and congratulate even myself for my perceverance that bears its fruits. So I promise I'll follow with great attention all your future nominations for that continues this successful teamwork. Hope it's more elegant, and hope you will continue your effort your efforts on categorization of your images, see you soon Alvesgaspar --Christian Ferrer 12:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. Yann 11:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Livioandronico2013 09:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Viru_värav_-_lõuna-torn.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination South tower of the Viru Gate, Tallinn. --Óðinn 04:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  OpposeOverexposed sky. --Iifar 18:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The lighting is poor and the crop too tight on the subject -- Alvesgaspar 12:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unnatural perspective. -- Spurzem 22:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Livioandronico2013 09:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-21_MF_red_687_Deutsches_Museum_Flugwerft_Schleissheim_2014_01.jpg[edit]

File:Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 MF red 687 Deutsches Museum Flugwerft Schleissheim 2014 01.jpg

  • Nomination Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 MF Fishbed (red 687, 1973). --Julian Herzog 20:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
 Comment Its explicitly forbidden to take pictures in this museum for publishing it under a free licence. Only for private purposes. --Hubertl 21:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC) --Hubertl 20:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Really? :/ Thanks for the info. Julian Herzog 05:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 Support That's not a valid reason to decline here. --Yann 15:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 Comment It should because this is an offense in germany. --Code 08:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
@Yann: , "check license" etc. is a guideline here for nominations and reviews. A pending no-nonsense DR by the uploader is slightly disturbing. –Be..anyone 02:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
@Be..anyone: - Please don´t give any vote in my name. Never! Bist grad ein bisserl übermotiviert? --Hubertl 03:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Possibly, but the rules some lines above say that converting "br" requires conversion into "o" or "s" to reflect the original reason of the "discuss". Maybe I misunderstood that, thanks for fixing it. Some abuse filter already whined when I tried to remove the older of your two timestamps. –Be..anyone 03:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Livioandronico2013 09:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Normalsegelapparat_Otto_Lilienthal_Deutsches_Museum_Flugwerft_Schleissheim_2014.jpg[edit]

File:Normalsegelapparat Otto Lilienthal Deutsches Museum Flugwerft Schleissheim 2014.jpg

  • Nomination Normalsegelapparat by Otto Lilienthal at Deutsches Museum Flugwerft Schleissheim. --Julian Herzog 20:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Yann 20:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, because its not permited to take pictures in this museum for publishing it under a free licence. --Hubertl 21:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Not a valid reason to decline here. Yann 15:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support Hausrecht ist Risiko des Fotografen, urheberrechtlich unbedenklich. --Ralf Roletschek 10:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    •  Comment Ist es nicht, siehe BGH, Urt. v. 17.12.2010, Az. V ZR 44/10. --Code 18:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Livioandronico2013 09:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

File:DLR_VFW-Fokker_614_ATTAS_project_Deutsches_Museum_Flugwerft_Schleissheim_2014_01_cockpit.jpg[edit]

File:DLR VFW-Fokker 614 ATTAS project Deutsches Museum Flugwerft Schleissheim 2014 01 cockpit.jpg

  • Nomination DLR VFW-Fokker 614 (reg. D-ADAM) ATTAS cockpit. --Julian Herzog 20:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good image -- MJJR 20:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, because its not permited to take pictures in this museum for publishing it under a free licence. --Hubertl 21:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support There is nothing here which can get a copyright. Yann 10:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment It's a matter of property, not copyright. If the owner forbids taking such photos it is an offense to take or publish them. --Code 09:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Livioandronico2013 09:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)