Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 27 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Cañas_(Phragmites_australis),_Delta_del_Danubio,_Rumanía,_2016-05-28,_DD_18.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Reeds (Phragmites australis), Danube Delta, Romania --Poco a poco 07:03, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Overprocessing and I can't see what's sharp here. --Peulle 07:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I tell you, if I upload pictures again and they are 20 MPx maximum that will be thank to you. --Poco a poco 07:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'm actually surprised that a veteran like you, with tons of great images published, feels that this is a QI. Look at those trees and tell me you that you truly believe it. Anyway, glad to get more opinions on the subject.--Peulle 07:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • You'd rather consider the resolution of an image before you review it. If I downsample to 2 MPx would be probably great to you Poco a poco 07:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment I actually disagree in this case; the image is so poorly rendered that I don't accept high resolution as an excuse to let it go by. I remain firm at oppose. Let's hear some other opinions.--Peulle 09:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, not sharp enough --Michielverbeek 17:43, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --PumpkinSky 23:50, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Discolampa ethion 0412.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Discolampa ethion --Vengolis 02:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. PumpkinSky 02:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not enough in focus. Charlesjsharp 11:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support The subject is in focus, and the depth of field makes sense for illustrating, for example, a Wikipedia article. Good photo. Guanaco 06:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Charles. Sure, it could be useful for a Wikipedia article, but we have Valued Images for photos that are good illustrations of articles online. -- Ikan Kekek 07:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others.--Peulle 08:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 10:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Polyzonus sp 8544.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Polyzonus sp --Vengolis 02:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality.PumpkinSky 02:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not enough in focus. Charlesjsharp 11:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support The subject is in focus, and the depth of field makes sense for illustrating, for example, a Wikipedia article. Good photo. Guanaco 06:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support - Larger file than the other one, and clear enough for QI, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 07:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --PumpkinSky 23:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)