Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 23 2017

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Crabronidae 1215.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Crabronidae , at Madayipara --Vengolis 01:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --PumpkinSky 02:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too small and soft for me. Charlesjsharp 21:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose - This is close to the line, but my judgment falls just under the line for QI. -- Ikan Kekek 10:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 11:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Dunblane_Cathedral_interior_2017.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Dunblane Cathedral interior --DeFacto 19:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good Quality. Suggest you put this up at FPC. PumpkinSky 00:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The NR is very strong and there are some weird artifacts at the ceiling. --C messier 12:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Oh my Dog --Livioandronico2013 11:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Heavily overprocessed.--Peulle 21:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per C messier. --W.carter 08:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp and especially not so distorted as many other images of this kind. -- Spurzem 14:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. The ceiling looks really weird. -- Ikan Kekek 10:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 12:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Madonna_santa_maria_ausiliatrice.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Madonna santa maria ausiliatrice --Livioandronico2013 18:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Comment Could you please give a more precise declaration for the not so sophisticated viewers? As well here as in the image declaration. --PtrQs 22:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, so rather plain and simple: my problem is, that only few people would know where that statue stands and what it wants to show. So a geographical hint like [Brescello] and maybe a general (english) explanation of 'ausiliatrice' would be helpful. --PtrQs 00:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • And why should I? If you're so curious you can see the category or where the photo is used .... it's not vicious about QI... --Livioandronico2013 19:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me. But the place should be added in the description. -- Spurzem 21:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Oppose What is so difficult in adding some place and description? I'd like to have this discussed, just the name of the statue does not fulfill the QI-request 'short description'. And btw: the description of the file itself is by no means more detailed .. --PtrQs 15:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Support While I certainly agree that the description could be more ... (ahem) descriptive, i.e. speak more clearly what the image contains, the categorization and geolocation also contribute to the matter.--Peulle 13:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  •  Comment - I think an accurate description would be "Statue of the Madonna on the roof of the church of Santa Maria Ausiliatrice in Rome". But really, Livio, you could always give such a description in Italian and anyone could translate it. The photo is certainly a QI, but why not include a more complete description like the one I just typed (if it's accurate)? -- Ikan Kekek 04:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 12:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)