Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 10 2018

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Menhir_du_Col_de_Bes.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Menhir du Col de Bes located in the commune of Notre-Dame-de-la-Rouvière (Gard) --Nunux34 08:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 10:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose insufficient quality, overexpoded. --Fischer.H 07:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO OE is irrelevant--Moroder 07:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm not agree: It is a important area of the subject IMO--Lmbuga 13:41, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sidelight is high enough to play like a strip light. IMO, Issue is to handle contrast in front and backlight. For me to bright frontal (subjektive). Looks like automatic shoot. But, it´s fixeable--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 19:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lmbuga --Sandro Halank 22:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Lmbuga. --Basotxerri 16:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Basotxerri 18:30, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Ambigram_Upside_Down.png[edit]

  • Nomination: Ambigram Upside Down, rotational symmetry of 180 degrees --Basile Morin 14:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Too simple for QI, IMO. --Peulle 09:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I disagreee, there is huge work behind this, and like any logo it's never as "simple" as it seems -- Basile Morin 13:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support per Basile. There may be images that are too simple, but these are not, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 10:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 13:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Peulle Poco a poco 10:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support --Trougnouf 13:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Peulle--Lmbuga 22:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   It seemes there is no clear consensus on these - perhaps the criteria for such images should be discussed further. --Peulle 07:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Ambigram_Stay_here.png[edit]

  • Nomination: Ambigram Stay here, rotational symmetry of 180 degrees --Basile Morin 14:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Too simple for QI, IMO. --Peulle 09:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I disagreee, there is huge work behind this, and like any logo it's never as "simple" as it seems -- Basile Morin 13:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support per Basile. There may be images that are too simple, but these are not, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 10:07, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 13:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Peulle Poco a poco 10:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support --Trougnouf 13:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others--Lmbuga 21:59, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 07:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Ambigram_Ambiguity.png[edit]

  • Nomination: Ambigram Ambiguity, rotational symmetry of 180 degrees --Basile Morin 14:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose Too simple for QI, IMO. --Peulle 09:40, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I disagreee, there is huge work behind this, and like any logo it's never as "simple" as it seems -- Basile Morin 13:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support per Basile. There may be images that are too simple, but these are not, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 10:08, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 13:14, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Peulle Poco a poco 10:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support --Trougnouf 13:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Peulle --Lmbuga 22:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 07:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Kochubey_Mansion_SPB_(img1).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Kochubey Mansion in Saint Petersburg --Florstein 13:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Oppose The cars spoil the composition sorry --Cvmontuy 21:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I can't agree. Let's ask for other opinions. --Florstein 15:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for QI --A.Savin 12:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, no QI for me --Fischer.H 13:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support Probably (very) slight underexposure. Not a FP, but meets QI criteria. --Smial 13:40, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support ok IMO --Christian Ferrer 13:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Support per others. -- Ikan Kekek 09:49, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Leaning out, CA (halos left side), disturbing foreground objects.--Peulle 16:15, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As Peulle and rule of thirds (too much sky)--Lmbuga 13:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 07:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)