Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 01 2023

Consensual review edit

File:HTO_Park,_Toronto_02.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination HTO Park --Fabian Roudra Baroi 05:36, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 06:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It needs to be rotated ccw to become QI. --Augustgeyler 15:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
    • @Augustgeyler: Not ever umbrella is straight, it's hard to guess. I used the middle one as a reference to rotate ccw--Fabian Roudra Baroi 19:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
      •   Comment I suggest using the buildings verticals in the centre of the image as reference. --Augustgeyler 22:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
        • @Augustgeyler: I'm not sure which one are you referring to, it looks good enough to me. Would you mind marking it ?--Fabian Roudra Baroi 23:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Well done!   Thank you. --Augustgeyler 20:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Augustgeyler 21:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

File:20_Fenchurch_Street_from_The_Garden_at_120_2.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination 20 Fenchurch Street from The Garden at 120. --Kallerna 19:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Overexposure on hole left side. --Der Angemeldete 21:34, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Comment Overexposed on the left side, can you fix it? --Fabian Roudra Baroi 22:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Info To be moved to CR --Robert Flogaus-Faust 14:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not improved within a week.--Fabian Roudra Baroi 05:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined Mike Peel (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

File:Armoiries_Emmanuelle_de_Dampierre.svg edit

 

  • Nomination Armoiries de la princesse Emmanuelle de Dampierre, épouse de l'héritier du trône de France Jacques-Henri de Bourbon, par Stpiev, Grenadin07 13:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 20:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Looks too simple to me for QI --Poco a poco 18:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco.--Ermell 10:40, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Poco.--Fabian Roudra Baroi 04:46, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 12:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

File:Corona_Schutzmaske-20200606-RM-163306.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Woman with Corona protective mask in Bamberg --Ermell 10:08, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Visage dissimulé. De plus, aucun intérêt esthétique ou photographique, Grenadin07 11:43, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree. Unless you've been living under a rock for the last three years, it should be clear why wearing a face mask is an accurate depiction of a phenomenon in the world of late. The fact that the person's face is obscured is the point itself, not a negative.--Peulle 13:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support per Peulle. --Milseburg 15:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality, and per others. There's nothing ugly, anyway, about a woman wearing a mask. -- Ikan Kekek 03:17, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Question Did the lady know that she was photographed, and was she OK with publishing the photos? --A.Savin 02:56, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
    No response:   Oppose --A.Savin 01:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
      Comment Why the question, the face is covered by the mask as you can see.--Ermell 23:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
      Comment Here you can see an example of a mask really covering the face. Although, that one is still questionable whether she might be identified (due to uncommon eye colour IMO). Regards --A.Savin 14:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
      Comment Have there already been any court rulings in this regard? According to the STVO, a person wearing a mask is no longer recognizable.--Ermell 20:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
    Why does it always have to be a (case)law? somewhere We are a community of photographers for educational purposes, a basic level of professional ethics should be taken into account IMO. --A.Savin 22:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
      CommentI assume that you do not mean to imply that I lack professional ethics. QI nominations are about technical quality, not the legality of the publication. Some of the commenters don't seem to consider that. As can be seen from the title of the picture, this is about the mask and not the person. Peulle has already mentioned everything else.--Ermell 10:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Also a "Pro" due to quality issues.--Der Angemeldete 08:31, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per A.Savin. --Kallerna 19:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Tagooty 04:34, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per A.Savin. --Augustgeyler 12:20, 21 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)
  •   Oppose per A.Savin.--Fabian Roudra Baroi 04:40, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
  •   Question Do people walking the streets in Germany, still less with masks on, have the expectation of not being photographed? You all recognize, do you not, that some photographers have gotten famous for hidden-camera photos of people on the street or in the subway. Would you decline those, too, if QI weren't just for Commoners? -- Ikan Kekek 05:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
As an inmate of East Germany I can relate this question to simply one phrase: "Sie haben mir in's Gesicht gefilmt!" It's not that a lot of people would care about or not grant a good image random taken by a photograph in the streets, but laws in germany such as DSGVO support the bad minority, that doesn't. That is an unpleasant truth and again, if there are laws relating in the US meanwhile it should or must apply to all QIs and all Commons-images. Still, nobody cites laws here in context of not beeing consent with a photograph.--Der Angemeldete 14:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
  • You don't have to worry about U.S. laws in this regard. -- Ikan Kekek 09:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose →   Declined   --Augustgeyler 12:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)