Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 05 2017

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Verditer Flycatcher scientific name Eumyias thalassinus at Sattal India DSCN0934 1.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Verditer Flycatcher--Sumita Roy Dutta 08:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose not sharp enough. Charlesjsharp 09:30, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment with due respect of decline, 2nd opinion pls Sumita Roy Dutta 16:19, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Charles. -- Ikan Kekek 20:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Charles; the colour and composition are nice, but for QI I think the bord needs to be sharper.--Peulle (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Charles --Billy69150 14:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 20:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

File:2016-12-15_Sebastian_Gemkow_by_Sandro_Halank.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sebastian Gemkow (CDU) --Sandro Halank 21:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Looks OK. --Peulle 08:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose (for now) Sorry, I have a  Question: is this "police photo" really eligible for publishing? Did Mr.Gemkow approve for uploading it on Commons? From my own experience with "Wiki Loves Parliament" (I did it in Berlin back in 2013), such photos are only for identification purposes, and not for publishing. I miss educational value here, unless there are no further photos of this person on Commons; which is not the case. --A.Savin 11:35, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. What you're saying is that when shooting these projects, the photographer uses these photos for ID purposes so that he can later enter the correct information on the files that are going to be published? It will be interesting to hear the reply of @Sandro Halank: .--Peulle 07:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Good quality. I don't understand penalizing this photo in QIC. If the politician in question didn't give permission for the photo to be uploaded to Commons, it should be deleted, not denied QI status. -- Ikan Kekek 08:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Then I suggest that @A.Savin: nominate the image for deletion for the reason specified above, and that discussion will then be held under that section. If he is correct, the image will be deleted, but if there is good reason to keep the photo, it will be kept online and keep its QI status (which was given purely on the quality merits of the image). Does this sound good?--Peulle 10:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done for this and another one. --A.Savin 11:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 20:30, 4 May 2017 (UTC)