Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 20 2015

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Alstom Citadis 302 n°807 TCL Pont Raymond Barre Halle Tony Garnier.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Tramway de Lyon sur le Pont Raymond Barre--Billy69150 06:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline  Support Excellent quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:09, 09 January 2015 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Nostredamus 18:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 Question Should we check on sockpuppetry of this new user? registered only for purpose of promoting this photo and placed his support at the wrong place ... --Cccefalon 06:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we should, that's very weird. Kvardek du 13:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Both sides are leaning in, it need a perspective correction --Christian Ferrer 17:27, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. --Christian Ferrer 19:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    @Christian Ferrer : but Billy69150 is a Wikimedian ! He just published these photos both on his website and on Commons! Kvardek du 20:39, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    I think we need to get some OTRS confirmation on this. Mattbuck 21:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
    @Mattbuck it already exists, you could have asked more precisions when viewing the OTRS template below the photos. See tickets : 2015011210002169 is the first of the 16 OTRS permissions. You could ask him for a direct proof (he's not very far from me, I help him because he doesn't speak english very well, so Commons is much more difficult for him). Kvardek du 11:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    I'm not an OTRS member, I cannot view tickets. Mattbuck 13:53, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    Well I am, so... believe me Clin
    For each picture, authorization number is indicated below. @Christian Ferrer, can I remove your votes? Kvardek du 14:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    All an OTRS ticket tells us is that the uploader has the right to distribute them. It does not say they are the author. Mattbuck 22:42, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
    Mattbuck : yes but in this OTRS ticket at the first line there is (in french) "I confirm being the author of the following pictures I uploaded myself (...)". Kvardek du 08:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • In the file page there is a section author, if Billy69150 is the author so IMO he must write |author=[[User:Billy69150|Billy69150]] and after that a link to the source if he want in the dedicated section source. --Christian Ferrer 05:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
    We're working on this issue, but it is not a big problem by the moment we've the OTRS. kvardek du (la plej bela nombro) 09:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think the picture should be geolocated. JeanBono 10:46, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Since the full name of the aothor is included in the description, does it have to be in the file name ? Quite irrelevant with the scope. JeanBono 10:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment now it's ok but it always need a perspective correction  Oppose until it's fixed --Christian Ferrer 11:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as long as the Nostredamus-sockpuppetry-check is not bearing a clarifying result. --Cccefalon 05:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Cccefalon --Livioandronico2013 20:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --C messier 15:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

File:Boutique_Orange,_Champs_Elysées,_Paris.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Orange shop, Champs Elysées, Paris. --Yann 00:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Poor contrast (can't read company name on sign) --Daniel Case 23:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This comment is inaccurate, since there can definitely be read „orange“. But that is not at all. For me  Support. Other votes please. --Steindy 01:30, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

  •  Support.Despite a small white strip at the bottom of the photo--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Daniel --Livioandronico2013 23:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support weak pro. --Hubertl 00:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Considering the size of nearly 16 mpix, it’s OK for me. Overexposure of neon sign is hardly avoidable here. --Kreuzschnabel 20:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --C messier 12:15, 16 January 2015 (UTC)