Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 23 2020

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:2016-Walzenhausen-Swiss-Dreams-Hotel.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Swiss-Dreams-Hotel in Walzenhausen (AR)Eu, como posuidor dos dereitos de autor desta obra, pola presente publícoa baixo a seguinte licenza:. By User:Roland Zumbuehl --Beninho 20:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose I think the resolution is too small for 2020, just above 2MP. Also, quite dark --Podzemnik 05:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Comment It has more than 2 MB so for me is QI. --Beninho 07:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support o.k. for me per others --Ermell 19:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Underexposed. And I see no reason for downscaling so much (from 3.648*3.648 to 1500*1500)--Milseburg (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC).
  •  Oppose Per others. And despite the low image resolution, small remnants of CA are still visible. --Smial 11:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective should be fixed, underexposed areas and the resolution is too small for this easy to take photograph. --XRay 18:12, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 20:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Mount_Småtindan_and_lake_Stor-Kongsvatnet_seen_from_Tjeldbergtind_-_Svolvær,_Lofoten,_Norway_2019-08-12.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Panoramic view from mountain Tjeldbergtind in Lofoten, Norway. --Mænsard vokser 21:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality --Dira0101 15:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

*  Oppose I disagree. The thin white edges at the top and the left are disturbing and needles. --Milseburg 19:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

 Comment Yea sorry, I didn't notice. I uploaded a new version of the file. --Mænsard vokser 19:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Better now. Maybe a bit soft but no reason for me to oppose any more. --Milseburg 13:56, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 20:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Goat_killed_Christmas.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Goat killed ChristmasI --Wilfredor 18:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose The bottom crop cuts part of the subject. --Peulle 19:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
    I disagree. --Wilfredor 20:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 Comment We should be spared such nasty pictures, even if they are technically good. -- Spurzem 22:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
 Comment - I disagree. We don't have to look closely at them and can leave judging to others, but as long as people eat meat, these kinds of scenes should be photographed. -- Ikan Kekek 06:34, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Support - Yes, there's a slight crop, but in this context, it doesn't bother me. Good quality, and the composition is working well for me as a linear arabesque. -- Ikan Kekek 06:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too tight crop. Such photographs should show so much of the environment or situation that an observer has the opportunity to recognize a context. In this case perhaps something about the slaughter of animals in a traditional context. --Smial 10:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Smial --Milseburg 13:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Smial --GRDN711 18:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 20:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)