Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 25 2023

Consensual review edit

File:GMS_Europa_MMSI-27078300_Bamberg-20220805-RM-164442.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination GMS Europa in the MD Canal --Ermell 09:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 12:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Unfortunately, your images do not match the ship images in Category:Europa (ship, 1953, Vlissingen). Also, there appears to be some confusion in the data records for this ship at different forums. The name “Europa” and ENI number “04400500” are marked on the hull, along with the current owner – “JDK ShipService”. --GRDN711 17:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
    •   Comment Vlissingen was added by another user. Thanks for your help. However, wrong categorization is not a reason to oppose.--Ermell 20:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    •   Support Wrong categorization statement was entered as a comment just like the other image. As there was already a support vote, I presume the voting app registered the comment as an "oppose". Categorization now correct and I support this nomination. --GRDN711 (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment set to "Discuss". --Augustgeyler 18:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 03:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 11:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

File:Pu'er_tea,_Chinese_tea,_Rostov-on-Don,_Russia.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Pu'er tea from Yunnan. Chinese tea. --Argenberg 13:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Looks like a randomed shot without any processing, far from QI --Poco a poco 09:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Quality seems ok to me. Nice chinese operating manual. --Der Angemeldete 10:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Lights overexposed, subject too dark, looks like random. --XRay 06:39, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others casual shot... --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 11:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I find the natural-looking lighting actually very atmospheric and the idea with the reflective surfaces quite attractive. Unfortunately, the criticism of the overexposed background/lights is true and overall too many cluttered details distract from the main subject. --Smial 11:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Smial --Fabian Roudra Baroi 03:19, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose →   Declined   -- Augustgeyler 03:20, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

File:Corona_Schutzmaske-20200606-RM-163419.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Man with Corona protective mask --Ermell 10:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Image sombre, Grenadin07 11:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree. Main subject presented well. --Milseburg 11:34, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Quality seems ok to me, even though I can't find the esthetical purpose on this. --Der Angemeldete 08:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Possible Personality rights problems. --A.Savin 01:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good technical quality. As for A.Savin's point, I think that should be a matter for a deletion discussion rather than a QI one. Please feel free to nominate for deletion any image you feel should not be on Commons.--Peulle 11:22, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per A.Savin. --Kallerna 19:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per A.Savin. I do not recognize any implied consent of the person to be photographed. Nor does it appear to be a person of public interest. --Smial 11:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 11:55, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

File:Corona_Schutzmaske-20200606-RM-163304.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Woman with Corona protective mask in Bamberg --Ermell 09:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Peulle 12:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Yeux fermés, etc. Grenadin07 18:28, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment Set to "Discuss", because there are two contradicting votes. However, I am not sure whether the user may vote here because they have less than 50 edits on Commons, but lots of edits in the French Wikipedia. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:36, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my support Technically good quality. There is a hot pixel that should be fixed (have highlighted it in the file). Not sure about the aesthetic quality, particularly with the closed eyes, but seems good enough. Thanks. Mike Peel 19:47, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
    • Moving to   Neutral, A.Savin raises a good point. Thanks. Mike Peel 19:09, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
      •   Done Thanks for the review.--Ermell 10:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Possible Personality Rights' problems. Non-ethic at the very least: telephoto lens shot of random people without that they even notice? --A.Savin 01:56, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment My question would be: are there such problems with those pictures uploaded to US-Servers? We've learned in the past, that Commons makes it's own laws, when it comes down to claiming personal rights oder copyright issues. If there are laws in the US to protect personal rights of people taken by random photograph, it would be a problem of a lot of pictures, that were made QI over time.--Der Angemeldete 12:42, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
    • There is a big difference between incidental and main subject, though. Thanks. Mike Peel 19:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
      • Doesn't matter for the argument. If there are laws against those images even one QI of those unintended persona shots would be illegal.--Der Angemeldete 11:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per A.Savin. --Kallerna 19:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per A.Savin. I do not recognize any implied consent of the person to be photographed. Nor does it appear to be a person of public interest. --Smial 11:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 11:57, 24 February 2023 (UTC)