Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 01 2020

Consensual review edit

File:Sarcococca_Hookeriana_25-01-2020._(d.j.b)._01.jpg edit

 

  •   Comment - I still see 3 in the general area of the upper right corner. They're pretty light. There's an even lighter one diagonally up and to the left of the tip of the furthest left upper leaf, but that one is so light I wouldn't require a fix. -- Ikan Kekek 20:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Seven Pandas 22:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

File:Holocaust History Museum, Yad Vashem - Hall of Names - 20190206-DSC 1307.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Holocaust History Museum, Yad Vashem. By User:Ilya Varlamov --Andrew J.Kurbiko 08:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Comment Noise reductions necessary. --Ermell 13:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Chenspec 20:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. --Ermell 21:45, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Neutral I think that for an image this sharp and well-composed, the level of noise is acceptable since it's an indoor shot in a not very well lit room. The file name, though, needs to be a bit better. "Jerusalem" is just too general.--Peulle 09:09, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
    This user has an established naming rule and I am afraid to break it --Andrew J.Kurbiko 22:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Established naming rules of users are good (I have my own one ;–), but a general file name like “Jerusalem” is IMHO a bit too general. Therefore I have dared to rename this file, preserving the date and ID at the end. Hope it helps, --Aristeas (talk) 08:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support now. Btw. @Seven Pandas: You jumped the gun on the execution of the vote. I have reset it. Please wait the appropriate time before closing the vote.--Peulle 16:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose noise levels could be decreased for better quality. Also, what Peulle says. --MB-one 13:53, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Neutral Noise level is acceptable for me (see Peulle’s point), but the composition irritates me. --Aristeas 08:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 08:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

File:River_Play.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Two lovers playing with water splash by the River Benue. By User:Raykolorz --Tomer T 10:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
      Support Good quality. --JoachimKohler-HB 11:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
      Comment - Great photo except for the unsharp area in the foreground, and certainly a QI. I feel like it's fine not to specify the exact location if that's out of respect for the lovers, but an approximate location is expected, I think? I'd like an opinion from someone on these questions of location info. -- Ikan Kekek 12:40, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 21:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Shizhao 08:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
    I'm going to   Oppose for the sake of a discussion. This is a good picture, but the Benue is a long river, and unless this pair of lovers would like to keep the location completely secret, some greater degree of location information is necessary to fulfill the QI criteria. See Commons talk:Quality images candidates#Is there a requirement to specify location? for further context and information. -- Ikan Kekek 03:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment - See in particular User:A.Savin's remark: "There is {{Location withheld}} for such cases and that's OK, but for most photos, coordinates are helpful and should be part of what we call a meaningful description." But the Benue is a long enough river that at least a general location won't publicize this spot, even if it's a place they want to keep secret. It would be like just mentioning "Rhine", or something like that. The Benue is about 1,083 km long.-- Ikan Kekek 17:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan, Tournasol7 16:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan --Michielverbeek 22:19, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan--Ermell 20:08, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose background blur enhanced improperly. --MB-one 08:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Quality image. Shooting it down because it doesn't have a GPS location is defeating the purpose of having a quality image rating. Location has nothing to do with the quality of the image. "River Benue" is plenty good enough for me. Places lovers hang out should be exempt from such a "requirement".Seven Pandas 13:42, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Are you arguing for jury nullification of Commons:Quality images candidates#Image page requirements? I may be misunderstanding your statement, because if only the image counts, who gives a damn about the filename, categories, description - actually, why have an image page at all? Would you like to modify your statement to sound less categorical? What limits are you suggesting, short of dispensing with all image page requirements (not relating to copyleft and other legalities, I guess)? I invite you to take part in Commons talk:Quality images candidates#Is there a requirement to specify location?, because in my opinion, this thread is not the appropriate place for a policy debate. Commons doesn't seem to work the way some other Wikis do, where policies and guidelines can be changed only through discussion on policy or guideline talk pages, but it's still less messy to have the relevant discussions there. -- Ikan Kekek 15:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan (unsufficiant localisation) and MB-one (bad masking) --Smial 23:22, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per MB-one --Cvmontuy 14:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support per Seven Pandas --Jakubhal 20:12, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 7 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 08:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)