Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 14 2023

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:0940 NOR Hammerfest town quay and Adolf Henrik Lindstrøm from S V-P.jpg[edit]

File:0940 NOR Hammerfest town quay and Adolf Henrik Lindstrøm from S V-P.jpg

✓ Done thanks for the hint I have added the FoP template and the spelling has been corrected
But, since Commons requires that all images be free for commercial use, buildings are the only copyrighted works in Norway for which the FOP exception applies for Commons and here the statue is clearly the main motive. The statue is from 2017 and the artist is very much alive.--ArildV (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The photo is OK for me, but if it'll be deleted for violation of the sculptor's copyright, anyway, there's no point in making it a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 03:46, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  OpposeStatue is dark and a bit blurry (probably result of noise reduction) while background is bright. Probably not the photographer's fault but due to the lighting, but still, this photo seems not an adequate illustration of the statue.
  •  I withdraw my nomination very valid point that it is wise to wait for the outcome of the deletion request. --Virtual-Pano (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 07:52, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:20221020_Clubhaus_des_Lindauer_Segelklubs_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View across a wharf to the clubhouse of sailing club in Lindau --FlocciNivis 08:41, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Support Good quality. --PaestumPaestum 14:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
     Oppose If the subject is the club house, you should try to find a viewing angle that avoids clutter as much as possible. Some of your other images are better at this - this one, not so. Sorry. --GRDN711 19:30, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose mainly based on unfavourable composition - Hint if I may: If the masts of the sailing boats are getting cropped (which is perfectly fine imo), why not taking a step forward to get rid of the sign and concrete bollard which is out of focus anyway? Taht way you would get closer to the main object and have less clutter like GRDN711 already mentioned. --Virtual-Pano (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:33, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

File:20221107_Alter_Südfriedhof_München_07.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination View up to the statue on a grave on the Old Cemetery South in Munich with blur-disks in the background --FlocciNivis 16:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose IMHO, insufficient DOF, as I find the out of focus parts of the statue way too prominent and distracting, feel free to move to discuss though. --C messier 17:40, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you for your feedback. I think the DOF is good enough at least and even facilitates the composition. So I would like to hear some other assessments --FlocciNivis 18:04, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfavourable lighting. Although the idea of a shallow depth of field is not a bad one for this object, the face of the statue is in the shadow and "disappears" in the surroundings. --Smial 23:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. No good lighting. Escpecially the face of the angel is too dark. -- Spurzem 14:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I improved the exposure on the angel statue now. But I understand, if that is not enough to make it a QI. Thank you for the reviews in any case --FlocciNivis 17:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 06:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC))