Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 11 2017

Consensual review edit

File:Cossipore_Garden_House_or_Udyan_Baati_-3.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Cossipore Garden House --Sumitsurai 16:23, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   SupportGood quality. --Kritzolina 17:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Facade is washed out, picture needs perspective correction, categories. --A.Savin 14:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per A.Savin. The problems he describes are evident even in thumbnail size. -- Ikan Kekek 06:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 07:49, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Bodrogszerdahely, blazono.svg edit

 

  • Nomination Coat of arms of Streda nad Bodrogom / Bodrogszerdahely (Slovakia) -- Renardo la vulpo 21:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment The image itself is fine, but I'm concerned about the license issue; QI images should generally have free-to-use licences and this one has a limitation...--Peulle 00:26, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you. The regulations say that “Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license,” and they link to “Copyright tags.” What exactly do you mean by “free-to-use?” -- Renardo la vulpo 00:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Just that box limiting the use in Slovakia. Moving this to CR for more discussion and opinions.--Peulle 19:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks again. I knew what you meant by the limitation but not from where you got the “free-to-use” condition. Yes, it's best to leave it to CR, it could happen again. -- Renardo la vulpo 20:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Slovak law limiting use. -- Ikan Kekek 03:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I have no problem if my picture is not QI but I would like to know where our rules say that quality images must be completely “free-to-use” (which is not the same as a valid or suitable licence – the license is cc-by-sa-4.0). That would help me (and probably other authors) to decide beforehand whether it makes sense to propose an image as QI. -- Renardo la vulpo 07:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It would seem sensible for such images not to be on the site at all, considering the nature of this project. However, if there is in fact no such rule, I will strike my vote. -- Ikan Kekek 07:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Found it. :) Please see Wikimedia's page on Non-copyright restrictions: "(...)the legal prohibitions on using a registered mark or an image of a well known personality to mislead consumers are not considered to impact the freeness of the work. In Germany, usage of the Swastika and other Nazi symbology is restricted outside of scholarly contexts yet this too is not considered a material limitation for our purposes." I take this to mean that while some countries have limitations on the use of symbols, the license is still considered free if it is valid for most countries in general. For the record, my position is that Commons images must have a suitable license, i.e. not have too many restrictions on their use, in order for them to be of service to the community. This is a hard-line in FP images, while the lines can be somewhat more flexible in QIC.--Peulle 17:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you for taking the trouble to look this up. I was looking for something along this line but could not find it. -- Renardo la vulpo 19:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Livioandronico2013 20:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Thanks for looking up the policy, Peulle. -- Ikan Kekek 23:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Lmbuga 17:12, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 17:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Instant yakisoba 001.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Typical sample of instant yakisoba of Japan--Ocdp 09:43, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Bottom of the picture is unsharp. --Jacek Halicki 10:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Was this photo previously declined? I ask because photos that were declined shouldn't be renominated unless improvements were made to address the reason(s) for the decline. -- Ikan Kekek 10:37, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
    同じ商品を撮影しなおした、異なる画像ですよ。
  • Same food, different Picture.--Ocdp 13:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, good. -- Ikan Kekek 00:35, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm going to contest this decline. I'll   Support; I think this photo is good enough for QI. The unsharpness in the foreground is minimal, in my opinion, and visible only when pixel-peeping at full size. -- Ikan Kekek 00:38, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, You need a tripod. The picture could be better: Noise, I don't like the DoF...--Lmbuga 17:39, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment Of course I used tripod when I took this picture. I can't know where is out of focus. could someone tell me where it is?--Ocdp 11:41, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Close to the camera, I think, very slightly. But since this is a "studio" type shot, there's no mitigating circumstance and the aperture needs a higher setting to increase the depth.--Peulle 19:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
  Oppose Only the upper part is sharp, per Peulle.--Jebulon 09:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Jebulon--Lmbuga 17:15, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --A.Savin 00:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Tampak_depan_gedung_birokrat_Universitas_Syiah_Kuala;_2014.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Front view of the bureaucrat building of Syiah Kuala University. --Rachmat04 02:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Please improve white balance, colours are far from natural --Michielverbeek 06:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Not done. -- Slaunger 20:00, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I have correct WB and perspective, please discuss, ist a nice photo! --Ralf Roletschek 21:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too much useless sky and ground. If cropped, resolution would go below 2 megapixels. --A.Savin 22:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support The pattern on the ground is just as interesting as the building since it mirrors the architecture of the house and most of the sky is needed to balance the photo (Could be improved by a small top crop, see note.). Nice catch. --W.carter 11:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I cannot open the photo --Michielverbeek 07:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Click at the top where there is no annotation or on the text below the photo where it says "2,000 × 1,500 pixels." --cart-Talk 10:18, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks, now it's a Q1photo.   Support --Michielverbeek 07:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support It's fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 17:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 00:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

File:Möven-Winter-P1211464.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Black-headed gull taking off --Ermell 20:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Slight blur on wings but overall QI for me. --Scotch Mist 20:17, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm unsure about this one. To me, it looks considerably blurred all over. I would definitely support this as a Valuable Image of a black-headed gull taking off, but I'm not sure whether the motion blur is too much for QI or not. So without actually voting pro or con as of now, I would like a discussion. -- Ikan Kekek 08:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Not bad for a dynamic scene, OK4QI --A.Savin 14:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support per A.Savin. --W.carter 11:25, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Composition somewhat too centered, and the head could be a bit sharper, but overall good enough. I like the motion blur of the wings in contrast to the "frozen" water very much, it's dynamic. --Smial 08:45, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, difficult picture, but average quality IMO: Noise!, detail (eyes are very bad), underexposed areas IMO, slight blur on wings. Perhaps FP, but not QI IMO--Lmbuga 17:29, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  Comment In any case, it is a good picture and I like it--Lmbuga 17:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --A.Savin 00:24, 11 February 2017 (UTC)