Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 05 2016

Consensual review edit

File:Holstentor in Lübeck Frontseite.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Holstentor in Lübeck, view from Holstentorplatz, Germany Dr. Chriss 18:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Tilt & perspective issues. --Jacek Halicki 18:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Info i'm sorry but the buidling is lopsided as u can see here, the picture is nearly "perfect" straigtened, look at the street lamps or the salt store on the right, verticals are nearly vertical. greets Dr. Chriss 22:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Please other users for opinions. --Jacek Halicki 00:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes, but it is not completly the same thing. I think in this case the question of personal rights should be discussed. In Germany publishing pictures of persons in a public space requires consent. So   Oppose because of these doubts. --Milseburg 15:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Comment If u read this publication about german rights in photopraphs on public places (1.3.5 and 1.3.6), greetings Dr. Chriss 16:47, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment This is a public place, people are de minimis. There is for sure no problem with personal rights. --Hubertl 09:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Stunning quality. Have a look at § 23 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 KUG regarding the personality rights issue. --Code 06:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks for the lesson, sorry for the inconvenience. Doubts are dispelled. --Milseburg 18:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
  •   Strong support Can we decline a photo with 57 megabytes? It has great colors too. Also, the people in that place are not identificable, and the place is public, so no personal rights are needed. --Pokéfan95 12:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 09:20, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Holstentor Stadtseite.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Holstentor in Lübeck, Germany. --Dr. Chriss 00:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree, tilt and perspective problems. --Jacek Halicki 20:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    •   Info i'm sorry but the buidling is lopsided as u can see here, the picture is nearly "perfect" straigtened, look at the street lamps or the salt store on the right, verticals are nearly vertical. greets Dr. Chriss 22:31, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong   Support Absolutely breathtaking resolution (>100MPix), clarity, colors. Definitely QI, with potential for a FP. --Hendric Stattmann 09:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support like Hendric. --Milseburg 10:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support same as Hendric. --Hasenläufer 21:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support good explanation Hendric --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 22:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Strong support per Hendric. Can we decline a photo that has 43.44 megabytes? --Pokéfan95 03:02, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Yes, if it isn't QI. ;-) --XRay 11:10, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 09:21, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Lennusadam 2015.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Tallinn aeroplane harbour (by Hiiumaamudeliklubi). Kruusamägi 17:59, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Comment I think, we can expect a higher resolution from a 22 MPix Mark II. This goes for all the five images of this set of aerial photos. --Cccefalon 12:41, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support but it is a QI --Ralf Roletschek 13:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too small and tilted ccw. --Cccefalon 14:03, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Palauenc05 23:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I´ve learned a few weeks ago: Images should not be downsampled (see:Commons:Image guidelines) Right? --Milseburg 01:25, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Saturation too artificial. @Milseburg: Right. --Hasenläufer 23:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  •   Support --LC-de 00:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 17:44, 4 January 2016 (UTC)