Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 10 2021

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Theatre,_celebrations_or_playing_instruments_(5).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Theatre, celebrations or playing instruments (by Myousry6666) --Adoscam 10:25, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Nice, but low level of detail --Jakubhal 19:43, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree, details in subjects and surrounding objects are clear --The night rainbow 07:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Jakubhal--Commonists 17:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose processing problems - looks like a mobile phone shot.--Peulle 07:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:59, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Modelo_de_un_sauropodomorfo,_yacimiento_Árbol_de_Igea,_Igea,_La_Rioja,_España,_2021-08-31,_DD_28.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Model of a Sauropodomorpha, archeological area of Árbol de Igea, Igea, La Rioja, Spain --Poco a poco 17:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Sorry, this composition is not working. The neck of the model is partially lined up with the horizon so that both are not distinguishable any more. --Augustgeyler 11:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I could undestand this kind of argument at FPC regarding the composition, but not here. --Poco a poco 11:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment I see your point. But please take into account that my critic was not about aesthetics but about clarity and comprehensibility. Let's see what others think. --Augustgeyler 16:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support It's a funny photo, but more to the point, it's not at all difficult to distinguish the tail of the statue of a dinosaur from the mountains in the distance. -- Ikan Kekek 11:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support --Fischer.H 18:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support No reason to oppose. Charlesjsharp 10:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 11:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Hatley_Park_National_Historic_Site,_British_Columbia_(2012)_-_12.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Sculpture at Hatley Park National Historic Site, British Columbia --Another Believer 01:35, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 04:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think there is too much loss of detail due to intense compression. --Augustgeyler 03:01, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support The lens is a little soft, the noise reduction may be a little overdone, but it's still within the acceptable range, and there are tiny remnants of CA that don't really bother. But overall the photo looks quite balanced and is perfectly usable for prints in A4 format or larger. I cannot find the typical JPG compression artefacts anywhere. --Smial 01:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Where are those compressions? --Palauenc05 22:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. I see no compressions. --Steindy 00:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

==

[edit]
  • Nomination Athanasius of Alexandria. Fresco in Church of the Transfiguration in Kefalos. Kos, Greece --Ввласенко 07:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 12:36, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks way too recent to be in PD, also no FOP in Greece. --C messier 20:40, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment If this is a FOP in Greece then submit a request for deletion. This has nothing to do with the quality of the photo. No deletion discussions are held here. --Steindy 00:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment A photo with questionable copyright status can't be QI. --C messier 09:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support why not? --Commonists 22:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Because according to the first requirement "Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license.". If it depicts a work protected by copyright, and thus not available with a compatible CC license, the photo fails to comply with the first requirement. --C messier 22:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 Comment OK but you don't have proof that it's recent, so I vote quality. Then if you have evidence to support your theory it will be deleted. Different if it was a known operation with a certain date of course. If you have evidence let me know and I will withdraw my vote of course. Greetings.--Commonists 00:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
There is also no proof that it isn't recent. Keep in mind precautionary principle is an official policy of Commons. --C messier 08:55, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Those are common commons rules, and in fact in the case it will be deleted! At the moment you have no evidence to say that it is too recent. If you are right, it will be deleted, otherwise my river flows smoothly.--Commonists 15:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Ввласенко can you tell us the date of this work? Thank you. --Commonists 15:40, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Commonists The photo was taken September 6, 2021,17:57:52.The church looks like a very new building, the frescoes also look completely new. -- Ввласенко 09:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment This photo, like the "File:Saint Basil the Great. Fresco in Church of the Transfiguration in Kefalos. Kos, Greece.jpg", is intended to be deleted. Does it make sense to talk about their quality? -- Ввласенко 09:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Oppose No it doesn't. --Augustgeyler 14:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 15:50, 9 December 2021 (UTC)