Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 18 2016

Consensual review edit

File:Poertschach Johannes-Brahms-Promenade Haensel und Gretel 14122015 2518.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Mannequins dressed as Gretel and Hansel of the fairy tale "Hansel and Gretel“, temporarily exposed on Johannes-Brahms-Promenade, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 02:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Haeferl 02:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry, but see COM:TOYS, there might be copyright issues --A.Savin 08:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
    •   Comment Those are no artworks, dear @A.Savin: but only industrially machine-made mannequins. They are NOT hand-crafted individual artworks, thus they represent no artistic value and so they do not subject to any restrictions or copyrights. Neither are they figures from Disneyland nor from the PIXAR-studios, I can assure you that. -- Johann Jaritz 08:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Please see Category:Mannequins and perhaps related Category:Shop windows with Christmas for what this is about. W.carter 17:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment From my humble understanding of copyright, anything non-utilitarian that has non-trivial form/shape/design, may have an author who may claim copyright on it; regardless the number of issued copies. But it's Consensual Review, so fair enough if the consensus is that there are no copyright problems. --A.Savin 17:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
  • You may have a point, but to me this looks more like some store using the "Haensel und Gretel" theme to promote their checkered boys' shirt and a dirndl dress for young girls. W.carter 20:19, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 13:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Le Grand Canyon du Colorado en2016 (10).JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Le Grand Canyon, du Colorado , en Arizona (USA).--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Best of these so far, but still problems with overexposure and unsharpness at upper right --Daniel Case 06:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
    •   Done correction with overexposure and unsharpness at upper right. Perhaps is it better? Thank you for your advice.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 09:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, but the overexposure is still too strong, not a QI for me. --Basotxerri 16:21, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 23:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Typical box of sushi 002.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Typical box of sushi sold in Japan. --Ocdp 05:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Quality is good but the crop isn't, as you cropped the box at both sides. Not a QI to me, sorry --Poco a poco 06:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Let's discuss, OK for me, all important parts are in the picture. --A.Savin 17:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Poco--Ermell 08:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  • weak   Support a bit disturbing but per Alex --Christian Ferrer 10:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Poco --Livioandronico2013 20:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Commentwhat is Per Poco?--Ocdp 22:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   answer - That means that Ermell is opposing a promotion for this photo on the same basis stated by Poco a poco. -- Ikan Kekek 00:48, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   CommentI see, I understood. Thank you.--Ocdp 11:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support the important parts are ok to me. --Ralf Roletschek 22:09, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. Lighting somewhat harsh, but colors seem to be natural, most important in food photography. Sharpness and DOF good enough, composition acceptabel. --Smial 11:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Poco --The Photographer 17:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
    •   CommentPerhaps, should I label this file as not Typical box of sushi but Packed sushi?--Ocdp 22:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Sure --The Photographer 18:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The crop might have been forgivable if the rest was perfect, but I think the DoF is a bit too shallow, leaving the food closest to the camera out of focus. For such a "studio"-type shot, the focus really should be better. Taken this into consideration along with the tight crop, I'm ending up on an oppose vote.--Peulle 08:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 13:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)