Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 19 2016

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Nationaal Park Weerribben-Wieden. Laarzenpad, Informatie over het trekpontje 01.jpg[edit]

File:Nationaal Park Weerribben-Wieden. Laarzenpad, Informatie over het trekpontje 01.jpg

  • Nomination National Park Weerribben-Wieden. Laarzenpad, Information about the pulling ferry.
    --Famberhorst 15:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 16:20, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is nothing on the signpost indicating that the photo or the artwork on it are copyright free. W.carter 21:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 17:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC) Deleted because of copyright issues?

File:Crocothemis servilia 06022.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Crocothemis servilia --Vengolis 02:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose sharpness much too poor for QI, IMO. Yerpo 07:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough for an image with such low resolution, IMO. --Peulle 13:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 10:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Timon_-_Le_Roi_lion_-_20150804_16h48_(10954).jpg[edit]

File:Timon - Le Roi lion - 20150804 16h48 (10954).jpg

  • Nomination Timon in The Lion King at the Disney Magic On Parade at Disneyland Paris. --Medium69 17:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Not a free image per COM:COSTUME --Daniel Case 19:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Disagree; @Daniel Case: did you read all of that link you gave? The discussion with the Spider-man costume is the clincher: the costume is copyrightable, but a photo of a person in the costume is not. That was the conclusion in the link you provided and I think we should apply it here as well. --Peulle 17:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
The costume depicts a copyrighted character. "If the costume is an accurate representation of a character whose design is released under a free license or in the public domain, it is permitted." So we cannot assume it is permitted. "If the costume is not the central focus of the image but only an incidental feature ... it is likely to be considered de minimis." Thus I distinguish this from the Spiderman picture—in that one the guy dressed as Spiderman is sharing the spotlight with the boy he is embracing; it would be a poor choice to show someone what Spider-Man looks like (And I think that discussion, settled years ago by Godwin Geoffrey, who is no longer the Foundation's legal counsel, is not the best guide to answer the question). Further, there is no freedom of panorama in France, so that cannot be claimed as an exception to copyright here either. Daniel Case 06:57, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
So if the image on Wikimedia portrays nothing but the costume, it is ineligible, while if it portrays people wearing the costumes in a setting (such as participating in a parade), it is OK? I can live with that.--Peulle 12:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
A distinction without a difference, I'm afraid. Daniel Case 22:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 10:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Chełmno, kościół św. Piotra i św. Pawła (9).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Stained glass window in church of SS. Peter and Paul, Chełmno, Poland --1bumer 18:37, 9 July 2016 (UTC)*  Comment I cannot open this file, because of a forbidden cross site scripting (due to this complex file name??) --Hubertl 18:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Review
    Btw: I don't have any problem with openining this file --Michielverbeek 19:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
    Yet slightly tilted cw; elsewhere good. --Cccefalon 07:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
     Support Good for me -- Spurzem 15:07, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
    So, why not promote if the photo is good enough? --Michielverbeek 18:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
     Oppose I really hate it, when other user just override my concerns which are really easy to fix. --Cccefalon 04:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment Yes, don't override another user's opinion, just change the label to "discuss" and send the image to CR (here) if you disagree. --Peulle ( talk) 17:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment Sorry, I have promoted this photo after Spurzem comments, but I did not realize "discuss" would have been the right action --Michielverbeek 15:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 10:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Pacific Eden, Fremantle, 2015 (02).JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Pacific Eden, Fremantle, Australia -- Bahnfrend 09:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support QI. It seems to be a bit oversharpened (halos can be found), but, nevertheless, QI. Dmitry Ivanov 09:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC).
  •  Oppose I disagree. Oversharpening way too massive, sorry. --Smial 12:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm trying to figure out how much sharpening is the right amount. Judging from the comments above, this appears to be a borderline case. I will therefore upload a less sharpened version. I expect to be able to do that by 14 July. -- Bahnfrend 08:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Smial. --Alchemist-hp 07:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version I've now uploaded a less sharpened version and have reset the running total to 0/0 - please reassess -- Bahnfrend 12:19, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Bahnfrend: You can ask Smial, Dmitry Ivanov and Alchemist, if they will change their votes, despite a new version, but you can´t set their votes to zero! --Hubertl 05:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I thought their votes were in relation to the original version of the image, not the replacement one, but anyway @Dmitry Ivanov, Smial, and Alchemist-hp: please reassess. Bahnfrend 11:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support for me ok now! --Hubertl 12:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Alchemist-hp 21:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)