Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 18 2022

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Mohnblüten_Trio_(47937350642).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Poppy flowers in Germany --Nguyenhai314 09:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Christian Ferrer 12:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not from a commoner. The uploader / nominator is almost certainly not the author. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days No discussion needed; image is ineligible per the Guidelines.--Peulle 11:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Mohnblüten_(51226608286).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Poppy flowers in Germany --Nguyenhai314 09:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality.--Horst J. Meuter 10:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not from a commoner AFAIK. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days No discussion; image is ineligible per the Guidelines.--Peulle 11:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Sonnenblume_(21695152852).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A Sunflower in full bloom --Nguyenhai314 09:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality.--Horst J. Meuter 10:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not from a commoner AFAIK. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days No discussion; image is ineligible per the Guidelines.--Peulle 11:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Gladiolen_(19977567615).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A gladiolus in full bloom --Nguyenhai314 15:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  I withdraw my support Good quality. --Nino Verde 16:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Jelican9 19:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not from a commoner AFAIK. The uploader (nominator) is not likely to be the author. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose--Peulle 11:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined Direct decline; image is ineligible per the Guidelines.--Peulle 11:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Gladiolen_(19790391188).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A gladiolus in full bloom --Nguyenhai314 15:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  I withdraw my support Good quality. --Nino Verde 16:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not likely to be from a commoner. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 10:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Sonnenblume_(20634446749).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sunflower in full bloom --Nguyenhai314 15:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  I withdraw my support Good quality. --Nino Verde 16:07, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not likely to be from a commoner. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment Oops, i've missed this. Thanks for your observation! --Nino Verde (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 10:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Sonnenblumen_(19776912555).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A Sunflower in different views --Nguyenhai314 15:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline

* Support Good quality. --Ermell 16:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I did not notice that.--Ermell 10:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined Direct decline; image is ineligible per the Guidelines.--Peulle 11:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Bodrum_Castle_(2017).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View on Bodrum Castle in Turkey. --Serhio Magpie 16:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Mahtamsv 21:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Tilt and chromatic aberration should be corrected. @Mahtamsv: I don't think that you should start your contribution on Commons with QI review straightaway. --A.Savin 07:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support --A.Savin 14:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 12:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Johann Jaritz 08:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Ikan Kekek 12:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 12:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Anjuna,_Goa,_India,_Holy_Hindu_cows.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cows at Anjuna Beach, Goa, India. --Argenberg 19:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Oppose shadows are a bit too dark. Hopefully fixable.  Not done --MB-one 21:16, 3 January 2022 (UTC) --MB-one 14:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Not done. --A.Savin 21:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment Lifting shadows would only make the scene worse. I believe everything is OK with this image. Natural light at sunset/early golden hour with shadows balanced for that type of light and that moment. Also note the cow itself is half black which adds to the impression and creates an illusion of dark shadows. I believe everything is OK with this image. Let the community decide. --Argenberg 22:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Seems OK to me. -- Ikan Kekek 07:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support For me, too. --Stepro 06:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The front cow's face would benefit from suggested shadow raising. Alternatively raising the local contrast for that area might help as well. As it is now, the texture of this main object in the foreground is hardly visible. --Augustgeyler 11:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Shanghai_Markt_Fisch_Auslagen-20150516-RM-115200.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Displays at a Shanghai streeet market in the Jing'an District --Ermell 08:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 15:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please fix the category "Street markets in Shanghai" first. --A.Savin 13:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Same as above. --Ermell 22:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 00:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Ikan. -- Johann Jaritz 08:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 10:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Finkenstein_am_Faaker_See_Faak_am-See_Kohlstattstraße_Info-Tafel_15042021_0801.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Information board on Kohlstattstraße in Faak am See, Finkenstein am Faaker See, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 03:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. (White could be improved.) --XRay 04:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Appears to be a copyvio, nominated for deletion. Thanks. Mike Peel 21:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Argue your point about Austrian copyright law, if you're familiar with it, elsewhere. -- Ikan Kekek 10:10, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality, subject to copyright. --Tagooty 00:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is what you guys consider as "quality image", a badly cropped image of a information board? --Kallerna 06:20, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 Comment Technically it fits requirements of Quality images. --Nino Verde (talk) 06:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose We should not promote images for QI as long as they are nominated for deletion. --Augustgeyler 22:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment Nonsense, in my opinion. When the nomination for deletion is rejected, it's fair that it didn't become a QI just because someone nominated it for deletion? Anything can be nominated for deletion, no matter how frivolous or ignorant the nomination. -- Ikan Kekek 12:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment And anyone who's image got nominated for deletion could wait with nominating this for QI as long as this deletion request is rejected. --Augustgeyler 20:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Question The deletion request happened after the QIC nomination. Why should the nominator withdraw, when the deletion request is seemingly likely to fail? -- Ikan Kekek 03:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment You are right. I did not see that. If it was about my nomination I would than withdraw it, to sort this out first.--Augustgeyler 00:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO the photo has an educational character. --F. Riedelio 18:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 11:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

=[edit]

  • Nomination: Information board on Kohlstattstraße in Faak am See, Finkenstein am Faaker See, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 03:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. (White could be improved.) --XRay 04:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Appears to be a copyvio, nominated for deletion. Thanks. Mike Peel 21:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 10:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality (subject to copyright issue) --Tagooty 00:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is what you guys consider as "quality image", a photo of a information board? --Kallerna 06:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose We should not promote images for QI as long as they are nominated for deletion. --Augustgeyler 22:50, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO the photo has an educational character. --F. Riedelio 18:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 11:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Finkenstein_am_Faaker_See_Faak_am_See_Inselweg_Info-Tafel_15042021_0809.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Information board on Inselweg in Faak am See, Finkenstein am Faaker See, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 03:47, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 04:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Appears to be a copyvio, nominated for deletion. Thanks. Mike Peel 21:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 10:14, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. (Subject to copyright issue) --Tagooty 05:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose This is what you guys consider as "quality image", a photo of a information board? --Kallerna 06:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't think we're supposed to judge what a worthwhile subject is. After all, Wikipedia uses all kinds of ordinary images to illustrate subjects of encyclopedia articles. -- Ikan Kekek 07:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment Commons has many CATs "Info boards in ...". The CAT:"Information boards in Carinthia", to which this image belongs, has 253 images out of which 17 are promoted as QI. --Tagooty 03:38, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • That is sad. Commons may need all kind of photos, but how about QI? --Kallerna 04:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • So a quality photo of an informational subject should be declined because the subject bores you? -- Ikan Kekek 08:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The reason is not that is bores me, the reason is that this is a photo of a photo. Maybe we should print this photo and take a picture of that one? --Kallerna 10:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • So what that it's a photo of a photo? That's hardly unique, and I don't understand why that could be construed as a valid reason why this is not a quality image. -- Ikan Kekek 13:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose We should not promote images for QI as long as they are nominated for deletion. --Augustgeyler 22:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO the photo has an educational character. --F. Riedelio 18:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 11:44, 17 January 2022 (UTC)