Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 08 2015

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Consensual review[edit]

File:Frohnleiten Altstadt.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination View over Mur river to the old town of Frohnleiten. --Clemens Stockner 14:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 14:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overexposed, very strong jpeg artifacts. --Kadellar 17:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
     Comment This was chosen as a top 50 image at WLM Austria 2015, I guess the jury knows a bit about photos. --Clemens Stockner 17:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Kadellar. This is QIC and not WLM. The review follows the criterias of the Image Guidelines. The jury of WLM has their own ideas. --Cccefalon 18:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
     Comment WLM winners seldom succeed in QIC or FPC because or 1-we are too perfeccionist? or 2-WLM juries are often not so strict or not even open the images to 100% full res; and as Cccefalon says, this is QIC, there are some guidelines. People here also might know a bit about pictures, quite a few have been jury, I myself have been jury three times, and I can tell there was always something to improve. --Kadellar 22:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Heavy artifacts (especially in the darker areas, like the water and the bridge) and CAs. --Tsungam 08:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
     Comment I'll try to remove the artifacts with some Photoshopping and get it nominated again later. But may I ask where's the CA? --Clemens Stockner 23:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose A very nice composition and a very poor image quality. I don't think Photoshopping this version will help. You will have to work on the original image taken out of the camera -- Alvesgaspar 13:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose With opposers. And I strongly agree with the WLM comments.--Jebulon 23:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 21:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Siskonmakkarakeitto.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Soup made of siskonmakkara saucissons. –Kotivalo 08:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Maybe some posterisation, but QI for me. --C messier 14:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  OpposeThe plate should be round--Ermell 14:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support very nice photo, the plate appears to be round --Ezarate 13:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Unusual but good composition. I like it as well. Alvesgaspar 13:58, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support unusual? --Ralf Roletschek 23:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Why not ? QI.--Jebulon 23:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 21:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

File:ChevroletCorsa-Tandil.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Chevrolet Corsa parked in Tandil, Argentina --Ezarate 20:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment Too much contrast, IMHO, wb is wrong, and too noisy (for ISO 100). All fixable. --C messier 15:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done --Ezarate 16:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
     Comment White balance still looks off IMHO (too purple). Play with green-purple bar. --C messier 17:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
     Oppose see Nissan Tiida --Ralf Roletschek 21:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
     Comment RAW file reprocessed, see now please Ezarate 16:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too soft, dumb lighting. Alvesgaspar 14:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Alvesgaspar.--Jebulon 23:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 21:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Mothers and children eating ice cream at Kew Gardens.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Mothers and children having ice cream at Kew Gardens --Daniel Case 16:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)}
  • Decline
  •  Comment Do you have the permission from these two families to publish this picture? --Hubertl 17:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • See the {{Consent}} tag ... it was in a public place where there was no expectation of privacy. Daniel Case 03:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment sorry, you are wrong IMO! These people have separated themself, they didn´t expect to be fotographed, additionaly, there are children too. Altogheter, this people are the main subject of this shot, not de minimis. You were very close to this people, why do you didn´t ask them for permission as you always should, when taking pictures from people? It´s also a matter of respect to do this!--Hubertl 07:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I agree with --Hubertl. Not appropriate to publish and promote this image. And just think - if you asked the parents, would they say yes? Charlesjsharp 12:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  • We have approved many similar images in the past with no indication of consent. Further, the children's faces are for the most part not visible. I would prefer to see some sort of consensus of more than just two users on this. --Daniel Case 16:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Hubertl. The picture should be deleted. According to the laws of - AFAIK - every european country this photo is clearly illegal. --Code 11:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think we need permission per Commons:Country_specific_consent_requirements#United_Kingdom. :( Jkadavoor 14:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • English law is not European law. From the Urban75 page on "Photographers Rights - Street shooting, people, privacy & children": "There are no laws against taking photos of children ...". From another UK photographer's website on "Photographing People and Children in Public Places": "Is it illegal to take photographs of children? No, there are no separate laws for minors. [While private properties may restrict photography], no such restrictions could normally be imposed or enforced in a public location. Can I publish photographs containing people and children? Of course you can. For images captured in locations where there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy, the photographer does not need the permission of the individual(s) who appear in that photograph in order to publish it online, in a newspaper, textbook or in a magazine." So don't say the image was illegal in the country where it was taken. Daniel Case 15:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I also commend this Telegraph article to everyone's attention: "...I rang the Home Office. They assured me that there is no law against taking photographs of other people's children, provided you do not harass or harm them." Daniel Case 16:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Did you tell the Home Office you were going to seek to have an image rated as QI on Wikimedia? Also, you appear to have no evidence they are mothers or the mothers of the children. Charlesjsharp 16:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
FP/QI has no separate rules. So I started a DR. Let us see the outcome. Jkadavoor 16:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I was unaware there was any responsibility to inform the Home Office of a country I'm not a citizen of and don't reside in of my intentions with the image. Next, I suppose, you're going to say I should have informed the Palace as well :-/. As for whether or not those women are the children's mothers, OK, maybe they're Daddy's mistresses, then? And frankly I don't see how either of those responses is relevant to the original argument, so I think we can assume you've conceded on that point. Daniel Case 18:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights is valid in England as well. And we have some rulings of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the question of photographing persons in public space. In the case Hannover v. Germany the court decided that there "is therefore a zone of interaction of a person with others, even in a public context, which may fall within the scope of "private life”." Taking photographs of people in the public is not simply allowed because it takes place in the public. Even if your outside your house you might have a legitimate expectation of privacy as long as you're not a person of public interest. And as we know of the decision cited before, even people of public interest do have a right of privacy outside their homes. It depends on what they are doing and on the context the pictures are published later on. It can't be seriously questioned that eating ice cream with your children in a public park is more or less the definition of a private activity. Nobody must expect to be photographed in such a situation. --Code 19:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
See my reply at the deletion discussion. Daniel Case 21:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose not for quality reasons, more for legal reasons. --Hubertl 20:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose +1 --Ralf Roletschek 20:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Call them moral reasons if you must, but they're not based in law. Daniel Case 21:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
What can you tell us about Common European Union Laws and decicions of the European Court of Human Rights, Case? It seems maybe strange to you as an american citizen, but its really a great thing to have something like that. You can understand it as an achievement of civilization.--Hubertl 21:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Who died and made you the EU's privacy cops? Actually, I understand them as a great reason to give money to the United Kingdom Independence Party. But maybe soon enough that will be moot. Daniel Case 21:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Also, Hubert, Germany and Austria kind of lost their chance to have English courts bend to their will about seven decades ago. Daniel Case 21:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
If this is your last argument, we can stop the discussion right now. Germany has enough to do handling their Pegida-movement, we really don't need some Tea-party-yakety yak blah blah here. Google it. --Hubertl 23:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Actually it wasn't, but you had to admit that some comment on those lines was inevitable. I refer you to Diliff's arguments at the deletion nomination, where he makes the point I want to make (that, absent an act of Parliament or a decision of a court of law in England or Wales to the effect that this sort of picture is against the law, simply citing EU law does not justify deleting this pictures since cultural expectations of privacy in public places has been historically different in Britain. That would be my last argument. Daniel Case 07:03, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Is it really so hard to understand that the European Convention on Human Rights actually is law in Great Britain because it was incorporated into UK law by an act of Parliament? --Code 09:16, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
No, I understand that alright. But my understanding is that Article 8 is seen as open-ended enough (another way, from my perspective as a photographer here, of calling it overbroad, for each member nation to interpret it, within limits, differently in regard to their own culture. I confess to not knowing if the Hannover decision makes its interpretation of German law in the area binding in full on the UK. But a fair amount of the legal advice from UK photographers that I quoted and linked to above postdates that decision, and does not seem to reflect any change in the understanding of the legality of photographing children in public on their part, much less mention that decision. Can I be allowed to reasonably conclude that what is not permitted in Germany is permitted (currently) in the UK? Daniel Case 19:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm en-0, sorry. In Europa gelten die Caroline-Urteile vom Europäischen Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte, diese räumen Kindern besondere Rechte ein. Wenn keine ausdrückliche Genhmigung vorliegt, sind solche Fotos nicht zulässig. --Ralf Roletschek 21:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 15:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Goose May 2010-1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Domestic goose -- Alvesgaspar 23:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. Charlesjsharp 12:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree Alvesgaspar 13:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough. --C messier 19:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Its not sharp enough even for that older camera, it can be better. --PetarM 16:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Mah...For me is accetable...--Livioandronico2013 20:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Not bad --Billy69150 21:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support --Σπάρτακος 07:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 15:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Nictea July 2015-2.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A Snow Owl in Antwerp Zoo -- Alvesgaspar 23:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose chest feathers over-exposed. Can you fix? Charlesjsharp 12:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment Obviously untrue in all colour channels. An easy fact to confirm. Alvesgaspar 13:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Clearly QI. A crop that puts the "dominant eye" in the vertical center supposedly makes it appear that the subject is looking at the viewer. -- RaboKarbakian 00:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support QI for me.--Ermell 14:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support QI. --Kadellar 15:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 23:49, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Chicken March 2010-1.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Domestic chicken -- Alvesgaspar 23:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Comment Not sharp enough. Charlesjsharp 12:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
     Comment I disagree -- Alvesgaspar 13:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Need location categories and/or geo codes. I know QI is just QI; but an image is more valuable when information as much as possible is added. Just my thoughts. Jkadavoor 05:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done You are right, thanks. Alvesgaspar 10:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks, Alves. Jkadavoor 02:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Charlesjsharp 10:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment The neck of the hen is blurred. --C messier 19:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Motion blur but good enough for me.--Ermell 14:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 15:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Nottuln,_Appelhülsen,_Schulze-Frenkings-Hof_--_2015_--_5478.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Schulze-Frenkings-Hof, Appelhülsen, Nottuln, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ajepbah 06:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
     Oppose the sky is partly overexposed. --Iifar 06:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO the sky is bright but not really overexposed. I've check this with the histogram too. Sometimes the sky is with bright white and gray parts.--XRay 11:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, the sky is covered sometimes with clouds. What a pity... --Hubertl 12:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
     Comment Histogram of this image has a huge spike on the right side - some clouds have lost the details. This is not good quality. --Iifar 12:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too imposing geometric distortion, looking unnatural. Alvesgaspar 10:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Good photo.--Ermell 14:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Sky may be a bit overexposed, but it's the building that matters. --Clemens Stockner 18:38, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per opposers. We judge a whole picture, not only the main subject !!!--Jebulon 23:15, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Support Main object is fine. --Ralf Roletschek 23:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 23:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)