Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 02 2024

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Aaron_Douglas_by_Edwin_Harleston_(51419).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Aaron Douglas, 1930, by Edwin Harleston --Rhododendrites 01:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 01:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, the reflections of light on the face spoil the painting, when you compare with Google Arts & Culture's version https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/portrait-of-aaron-douglas-edwin-harleston/VAHluxT2x5reHQ?ms=%7B%22x%22%3A0.39356178503810696%2C%22y%22%3A0.29227352173045734%2C%22z%22%3A10.995145481481481%2C%22size%22%3A%7B%22width%22%3A0.488969756147055%2C%22height%22%3A0.23746436668109303%7D%7D --Basile Morin 02:17, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree that version is better, but this isn't VIC. There was no flash used and no protective glass -- this is how it was displayed in the museum. QIC is about whether it's a technically adequate capture, not the best version. Rhododendrites 04:08, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, it is inadequate, because it gives the impression that these reflections are parts of the painting. Whereas they're not. You realize the reality only when you can compare, which is the case here. The artwork should be recognizable. It's not as if the photo was the masterpiece. The painting should be the piece of art. Then, if you produce an image with obvious flaws, it directly affects the original artwork, and its "quality" of course. Hence no QI for me -- Basile Morin 11:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good quality. --Plozessor 05:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment License or description info needs to be changed IMHO to reflect that the main subject is public domain. --C messier 07:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Oh right, I totally overlooked the description. It should actually use the "Art Photo" template to make it clear that the photo, not the artwork, is Rhododendrites'. --Plozessor 08:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't often upload photos of paintings. I'd be appreciative if someone who knows the appropriate template(s) could add it to the file page to reflect the point above. Rhododendrites 18:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: ✓ Done --Plozessor 19:27, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Not sure about the licensing though. Is this painting Public Domain in the US at all? --Plozessor 19:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
The painter died in 1931 so I think it is PD. --C messier 20:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Not necessarily because the copyright in US can be renewed in its 28th year to a maximum of 95 years. However, the majority of paintings was not renewed, and I could not find a renewal record for this painting in the publicly available databases. Thus it seems that it's Public Domain now and accordingly I added the PD-US-not renewed template, but still I'm not 1000 % sure. --Plozessor 08:25, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 06:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Augustgeyler 12:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

File:Bier-Bauch-Buche_bench,_Oberursel_(LRM_20240128_140326).jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Wooden bench at the "Bier-Bauch-Buche" (Fagus bierbauchus) in Stadtwald Oberursel --MB-one 09:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 05:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Interesting image with a story behind, but I don't think that these dark shadows and CA on branches make it QI. Let's discuss --Екатерина Борисова 03:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Екатерина. --Augustgeyler 08:47, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Augustgeyler 12:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)