Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 24 2017

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Sheepherder_and_his_flute.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination A sheepherder --IssamBarhoumi 15:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Comment this have a geey-shadow over all. See here. --Ralf Roletschek 15:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dull and grey. The other one is much better. PumpkinSky 17:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed and a bit unsharp, too. --Basotxerri 17:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Basotxerri --Michielverbeek 18:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 19:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Chittagong_University_Railway_station_(03).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Chittagong University Railway station. --Moheen Reeyad 22:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Kritzolina 10:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not very sharp. Let's get some more opinions.--Peulle 14:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Not oversharpened, good enough. --Smial 10:44, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --PumpkinSky 01:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Chittagong_University_Railway_station_(04).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Chittagong University Railway station. --Moheen Reeyad 22:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Kritzolina 10:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lacking in detail. Let's get some more opinions at CR.--Peulle 14:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Well exposed, not oversharpened, good enough. --Smial 10:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --PumpkinSky 01:10, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

File:2017-09-12 (148) ÖBB 21-73 834-0 at St. Pölten Hauptbahnhof.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination ÖBB 21-73 834-0 at St. Pölten main train station. --GT1976 06:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 07:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I disagree. The image needs a perspective correction, the CAs have to be removed. --Basotxerri 18:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Indeed, it needs a perspective correction --Michielverbeek 18:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --PumpkinSky 01:11, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Camel_market_at_Daraw_in_2017,_photo_by_Hatem_Moushir_11.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Camel market at Daraw --Hatem Moushir 05:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Technically a good picture (with a slight perspective adjustment needed on the buildings on the left) but I don't know if I would consider this a QI with the subjects looking away.--Trougnouf 19:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment perspective corrected —Hatem Moushir 13:22, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Neutral PumpkinSky 19:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support It's a photo of a camel market and all the things going on there, not a species photo of a camel, and the camels are more interested in something in the market. With this position you also see their owner's marking on the camels' necks better, we need good photos of such things too. --cart-Talk 10:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 Comment thank you cart for your point of view —Hatem Moushir 12:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Cart makes an excellent point. PumpkinSky 17:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --PumpkinSky 01:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)