Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 08 2016

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

Consensual review

[edit]

File:Sandakan_Sabah_IOI-Edible-Oils-Complex-10.jpg

[edit]

  • Nomination Sandakan, Sabah: Tank trucks and Oilpalm fruit lorries queuing at IOI Edible Oils Sdn Bhd at Kg Bahagian --Cccefalon 07:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  OpposeLooks blurred, sorry. --Peulle 11:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    • It is called "heat blur", is a physical effect and occurs easily when temperatures are > 35°C. Please observe the part which is within the DoF, it is pinsharp. It is physically not possible, to have camera shake only in a part of the image. --Cccefalon 13:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
      •  Comment I know it's the heat that causes it, but the result is still that most of the image looks blurred. --Peulle 20:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Hubertl 07:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Good work. Realistic. --Smial 12:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 20:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 22:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Schleswig-Holstein,_Heidmühlen,_Stellbrookmoor_NIK_0862.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Impressionen aus dem Naturschutzgebiet "Stellbrookmoor" im Kreis Segeberg, Schleswig-Holstein --Nightflyer 21:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 06:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Description of the nomination does not make sense and is inappropriate. --Cccefalon 08:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment I added the proper discussion formats (votes and vote summary). --Peulle 09:22, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Hubertl 21:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 22:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Schleswig-Holstein,_Heidmühlen,_Stellbrookmoor_NIK_0900.JPG

[edit]

  • Nomination Impressionen aus dem Naturschutzgebiet "Stellbrookmoor" im Kreis Segeberg, Schleswig-Holstein --Nightflyer 21:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ermell 08:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Description of the nomination does not make sense and is inappropriate. --Cccefalon 08:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment I added the proper discussion formats (votes and vote summary). --Peulle 09:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support --Hubertl 21:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Hubertl 22:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)