Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives April 05 2022

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:13th_floor_looking_down_-_staircase_modern_high_rise.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination View into a staircase of a modern high-rise from the 13th floor. By User:Virtual-Pano --Tomer T 06:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Oppose Sorry: Not sharp enough for QI, disturbing luminance noise --F. Riedelio 08:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
    the high key version was not ment to be listed here. I have geenrated an alternative version, please take a look at this one @F. Riedelio: --Virtual-Pano 17:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
    IMO still not sharp enough (artifacts?). --F. Riedelio 07:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Interesting image, sharp enough for me -- Spurzem 12:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support per Spurzem. -- Ikan Kekek 05:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment Is it possible to know which building it is ? --Sebring12Hrs 13:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 09:42, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

File:004_2018_06_20_Augenpflege.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Child with an eye patch
    --F. Riedelio 08:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose The patch is sharp enough, but the rest of the face is grainy. --Palauenc05 17:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support The subject (eye patch) is in focus. --F. Riedelio 10:26, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
Not possible to vote for one's own image. --Palauenc05 09:50, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support per above, but shouldn't there be a personality rights notice? -- Ikan Kekek 05:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 Comment Reference to personal right is not necessary, because the person is not recognizable.
I think they are. -- Ikan Kekek 18:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
If this was a child from my neighbourhood or one of my own, I would recognise it. Of course, the notice has to be set.--Smial 22:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support - the image isn't meant to focus on the face. XtraJovial (talk) 02:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Question Is that an argument against the use of a personality rights template? Since one hasn't been added, I'll change my vote to  Oppose. Had this been closed as inconclusive? -- Ikan Kekek 07:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, it had. --Peulle 11:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • ✓ Description improved Thanks for the review. --F. Riedelio 12:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment This nomination had been closed some days ago. What is going on here? --Palauenc05 15:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment Meanwhile, aren't a bunch of nominations above being closed prematurely? -- Ikan Kekek 21:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I only close nominations if I come across them more than 48 hours after the last entry. But lately, I have experienced that someone wants to vote after closure time. Frankly, I'm half a mind to simply overrule these votes as having come in too late.--Peulle 22:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Please go ahead! -- Ikan Kekek 23:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
  • By all means! --Palauenc05 06:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I am very sorry for all the confusion which I caused because I reopened this without leaving a note (which I should have done, of course!) This consensual review discussion was closed prematurely on March 28. So I reopened it (see https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list&diff=prev&oldid=645122331. Nomination of this image was on March 22. So these were considerably less than 8 days after nomination, which was too early to mark it as inconclusive for 8 consensual review days. BTW I also reopened the pocket calculator for the same reasons. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 07:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Addendum: Not all images in CR get 8 days; that's only if the votes are inconclusive. Otherwise, they only get 2. I haven't checked this image here, but the calculator nomination was standing at 4 votes to 3 for more than 48 hours (last vote being 26.3. 18:44 and closure being 29.3. 11:27). It was therefore promoted correctly. --Peulle 10:37, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I had not checked this. But probably someone added a declining vote after correct closure, resulting in an inconclusive vote, because the result for the calculator looked like this preceding my edit: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Quality_images_candidates/candidate_list&oldid=645122331#File:Casio_fx-85GT_PLUS_Scan_20220323.png. Also sorry for this mess, but I hope that the image will be promoted soon. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  • This one was inconclusive 1:1 as far as I remember. --Palauenc05 (talk) 14:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment Big confusion, but I've restored my supporting vote, in any case. -- Ikan Kekek 21:13, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 09:41, 4 April 2022 (UTC)