Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives January 27 2022

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

Consensual review[edit]

File:Sannegårdshamnen_Januari_2021_02.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Buildings in Sannegårdshamnen, Göteborg. --ArildV 11:32, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Christian Ferrer 16:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dust spots to remove. --Steindy 16:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Dust spots to be removed. --Augustgeyler 09:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 09:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Crow_Painted_Stork_Muttukadu_TN_Jan22_D72_22498.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Crow (Corvus splendens) chasing painted stork (Mycteria leucocephala) in flight, Muttukadu backwaters, TN --Tagooty 03:00, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 03:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Great capture, but not sharp enough for QI. -- Ikan Kekek 03:00, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unsharp image, very low quality --Yeriho 17:21, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 09:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Curtina_dla_Dlieja_Santa_Maria_ad_Nives_Sëlva.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Cemetery of Sëlva. --Moroder 13:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 16:27, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, the composition is good but the image seems overexposed to me. --Christian Ferrer 20:28, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Badly overexposed and tilted --Yeriho 17:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 09:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Sunset_at_Bang_Tao_beach_-_01.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Sunset on left side of Bang Tao beach. --Nino Verde 07:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Blur due camera shake. Sorry. --Ermell 10:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment Where? Branches are blurred in case of long exposure, other parts looks sharp. --Nino Verde 16:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Sorry, I saw that wrong. The ground and the clouds are sharp, the sea and the branches are blurred by the movement.--Ermell 10:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Yes, good qualiy and very atmospheric. --Aristeas 09:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Steindy 11:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Weak support --Hillopo2018 08:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 09:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Itzgrund_Hochwasser_Luftbild-20220109-RM-153319.jpg[edit]

  • Nomination: Flooded fields between Hemmendorf and Lahm --Ermell 09:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Review
  •  Support Good quality. --Velvet 07:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Corners are not sharp, bright areas blown out. --Nino Verde 17:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 09:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)