Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

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


Nominations[edit]

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures are only working on this page if you have Javascript enabled. If you do not have Javascript enabled please manually sign with

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 17:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.


July 24, 2016[edit]

July 23, 2016[edit]

July 22, 2016[edit]

July 21, 2016[edit]

July 20, 2016[edit]

July 19, 2016[edit]

July 18, 2016[edit]

July 17, 2016[edit]

July 16, 2016[edit]

July 15, 2016[edit]

July 14, 2016[edit]

July 13, 2016[edit]

July 10, 2016[edit]

July 9, 2016[edit]

Consensual review[edit]

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and Symbol support vote.svg Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".


Consensual Review[edit]

File:VirgenMaria-SanJose-NiñoJesús-BasilicaLujan.jpg[edit]

VirgenMaria-SanJose-NiñoJesús-BasilicaLujan.jpg

  • Nomination Statue of Saint Mary, Saint Joseph and Jesus in Nuestra Señora de Luján Basilica --Ezarate 22:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree: Unfortunate crop of a part of the statue (the accessoire in Joseph's hand) --Cccefalon 06:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC) Thanks, --Cccefalon 07:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done --Ezarate 13:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks good now. W.carter 14:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 05:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Elne Maillol Terrus.jpg[edit]

Elne Maillol Terrus.jpg

  • Nomination Bust of Étienne Terrus by Aristide Maillol, Elne, France. --Palauenc05 11:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 11:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment please adjust the white balance, too low contrast IMHO. --Carschten 12:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've given it a bit more contrast. --Palauenc05 14:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment the white balance is still too greenish. --Carschten 19:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 05:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Heißluftballons_über_Ellmau,_Tirol,_160625,_ako.jpg[edit]

Heißluftballons über Ellmau, Tirol, 160625, ako.jpg

  • Nomination Two blue hot air balloons above the town of Ellmau, Tyrol, Austria. --Code 06:01, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Hm... ballons just a small part of the image, and therefore they are to noisy IMHO --Carschten 12:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We've already promoted much noisier pictures.And it has always been good practice here not to decline immediately but to give the creator the opportunity to fix the issue! --Code 21:49, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Don't think too much about other images; there is very little consistency in QI judging as images are subjectively judged by different people. --Peulle 10:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think the baloons look sharp enough at 100% although the image could be zoomed in further. --Peulle 10:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you, Peulle, but anyways I thought it would be obvious that the composition is intentional. Two balloons lost in a lot of empty sky. One bigger than the other. Do I really have to explain my pictures to get them promoted? By the way: This isn't FPC. --Code 12:03, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 10:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Lindenallee in der Blüte.jpg[edit]

Lindenallee in der Blüte.jpg

  • Nomination Tilia avenues avenue, Natural monument in Hesse --Verum 19:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment it´s tilted ccw. --Hubertl 21:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for review. New version. --Verum 22:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 02:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose lots of spots and dirt in the sky, not really sharp (crisp) --Carschten 12:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as above --Dirtsc 13:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment New version, see history. Gruss --Nightflyer 21:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm looking at the latest version and the trees are all unsharp. --Peulle 16:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 16:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

file:Ανεμόμυλοι, Χώρα Σερίφου 9735.jpg[edit]

Ανεμόμυλοι, Χώρα Σερίφου 9735.jpg

  • Nomination Windmills in Chora of Serifos. --C messier 14:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A little bit on the bright side, especially the light blue door is missing it's details. Very fixable. W.carter 14:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I disagree, nothing was clipped and then remapped (please check histogram). --C messier 12:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Well, technically and according to histograms there is nothing wrong with the pic, but a pic is also what is esthetically pleasing to the eye, and in this case I think some more details would be better. W.carter 18:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The light from this angle is a bit flat, and this why there aren't so many details. --C messier 13:35, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
          • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think it's better to get some more input on this since we see things so differently. W.carter 19:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support o.k. for me --Ermell 07:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit soft -- Smial 14:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 10:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Ανεμόμυλος, Χώρα Σερίφου 9658.jpg[edit]

Ανεμόμυλος, Χώρα Σερίφου 9658.jpg

  • Nomination Windmill in Serifos. --C messier 10:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The windows and the small bush to the left of the building are a bit too dark to see any details. It is also very hard to see the difference between the wall and the house. Do you think you could do something about this? W.carter 19:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I disagree, there is visible detail in the shadows (and histogram confirms that the nunmber of very dark pixels is negligible).--C messier 13:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Again, technically and according to histograms there is nothing wrong with the pic, but a pic is also what is esthetically pleasing to the eye, and in this case I think some more details would be better. Do you want to take these to QIC or just wait for another reviewer since we disagree? W.carter 18:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A photo with less contrast wan't be more aesthetically pleasing. --C messier 13:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think it's better to get some more input on this since we see things so differently. W.carter 19:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks a bit as if you got the maximum from a kit lens, but the picture is QI for me.--Ermell 07:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit soft -- Smial 14:48, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 10:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Mohnnudel.jpg[edit]

Mohnnudel.jpg

  • Nomination Mohnnudels --A,Ocram 16:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --XRay 16:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • {{o}} Ich hoffe, es kommt nicht in den falschen Hals: Gerade bei Studioaufnahmen ist das Herrichten bzw. das Ausklonen von Fehlern im Hintergrundbereich besonders wichtig, weil es den Blick auf das Objekt reduziert. In diesem Fall sind es zwei Haare, dazu noch unnötige helle Stellen (das ist Zucker, aber unscharf). Das muss einfach raus. Ich wundere mich, warum du es nicht gemacht hast, es war bereits Gegenstand einer Diskussion! --Hubertl 03:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Die Haare und die runtergefallenen Zuckerkristalle sowie die Fehler im Hintergrund wurden weggepinselt. Gruss --Nightflyer 22:25, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Vom Raw-File, Nightflyer? --Hubertl 04:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Natürlich nicht. Wer jetzt noch rumschrauben will, muss eben meine kleine Arbeit wiederholen :-) Gruss --Nightflyer 12:54, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Vielen Dank an Nightflyer! --A,Ocram 19:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok now! --Hubertl 03:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 03:30, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Schleswig-Holstein,_Nordhastedt,_Fieler_Moor_NIK_0508.JPG[edit]

Schleswig-Holstein, Nordhastedt, Fieler Moor NIK 0508.JPG

  • Nomination Norwegische Fjordpferde als Landschaftspfleger im Naturschutzgebiet "Fieler Moor" im Kreis Dithmarschen, Schleswig-Holstein. --Nightflyer 19:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Peulle 20:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Review: Technisch OK aber schlechte Motivwahl. Weder ein Mensch noch ein Pferd wird als Hauptmotiv von hinten photografiert. Für mich so kein QI. --Verum 16:55, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. @Verum: Nonsense argument. If you want to show the back of an animal it is not very clever to take a photo of the nose. --Smial 09:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    Lass es mich deutsch schreibven. Es gibt durchaus hauotberufliche Pferde- und Kuhfotografen. Einer derselben hat mir da die nötigen Basics versucht zu erklären. Und da geht so ein Bild von hinten gar nicht. Erst einmal wäre es von den Lichtverhältnissen kein Problem gewesen, das Bild seitlich von vorne aufzunehmen. Und wenn wirklich das Hinterteil gewünscht ist muss man halt warten, bis das Tier den Kopf dreht wozu es idR mit relativ einfachen Tricks bewegt werden kann. Aber wenn ihr meint ist es ein QI. --Verum 13:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support We need pics showing off all parts of a horse's anatomy, the magnificent tail and the muscles on the back of the front legs are clearly defined. No trouble with the photo as such, I think a cropped version would make a good pic in the en:Horsehair article. W.carter 10:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The image is not meant to show a "Fjord horse" as a horse breed but to show "Horse doing landscape protection in the Fieler Moor". So its quite good to show the horse with its head down at the grass doing its "job". The technical quality is good. --Dirtsc 13:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Hubertl 05:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Эхинокактус Грузона - Echinocactus grusonii.jpg[edit]

Эхинокактус Грузона - Echinocactus grusonii.jpg

  • Nomination Эхинокактус Грузона - Echinocactus grusonii--AlixSaz 16:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose File too small (min 2 Mb) and stones overexposed.--W.carter 16:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see the overexposed stones, but the photo is nearly 3 Mpix (we count size Mpix not MB). --C messier 17:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Then plese lets see what a CR will bring. I dont see a significant overexposation. --Dirtsc 15:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality is good in my opinion. --Dirtsc 07:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. Jkadavoor 09:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If overexposure is the problem, surely that can be fixed in the edit? Waiting for a new version before voting. --Peulle 16:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 12:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Cologne_Germany_Cologne-Gay-Pride-2016_Parade-032.jpg[edit]

Cologne Germany Cologne-Gay-Pride-2016 Parade-032.jpg

  • Nomination Cologne, Germany: Headgear of a participant of Cologne Pride Parade 2016 --Cccefalon 03:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The head gear is sharp enough but it is so dominating that it should be centered in the pic, perhaps a crop? The white downy fluff needs a bit more structure and the rater white/light sky and flags behind it could use a little boost. There is some slight CA on the small building top right. Do you think you could fix this? --W.carter 21:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad crop --Atamari 18:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Looks pretty much as a huffy reaction on the QIC Abuse thread. However, it is also bad behaviour to override a review comment with an oppose without giving the opportunity to look into the alleged issue. --Cccefalon 20:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nein, keine Rache-Aktion (das mag ich nicht), ich schaute aber bei dem "First class premium-Revier" wie seine Bilder aussehen. Dieses ist für deine Verhältnisse nur ein mittelmäßiges Bild - das kannst du besser. Das Bild ist zwar scharf im Bereich der linken Schulter aber der Ausschnitt überzeugt (mir) nicht. Links ist das Objekt, der Kopfschmuck, das wohl der Fokus des Bildes darstellen soll, zu sehr am Rand gedrängt. Vielleicht es ging wohl nicht besser. Und oben setzt sich auch der Kopfschmuck auch nicht schön von der Flagge ab. Nach unten ist der Kopfschmuck auch unglücklich beschnitten, auch ragt dort unten rechts ein halber Kopf hinein. Wenn du doch schönere Bilder machen kannst - warum dieses Bild? Was hat bei deiner Wahl hier gestört? Ging es dir hier um +1 auf des QI-Konto? ;-) --Atamari (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Dear, it is not that I am short of images for nomination, I have around 50.000 unprocessed here and if you observe my upload list, you easily see that I am far from putting every photo to my nomination list. It is a petty demand, to ask the same quality for street photography than for studiophotography or architecture/landscape photography. What the fuck - after having nominated some superior photos, you think I cannot achieve promotion for a photo of normal quality? This photo is good as it is. It is taken with the best camera settings you can obtain for a close-up for moving objects in a crowd. --Cccefalon 08:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The right part of the head gear is out of focus, and the white parts of it blends with the background. --Peulle 15:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I can´t see, how to make it better. A smaller crop maybe? The back of the head and the main part of the head figure - which is in fact the main subject, is perfectly sharp. --Hubertl 04:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cropped a bit tight but QI for me.--Ermell 20:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 01:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Apartment building - Niš.jpg[edit]

Apartment building - Niš.jpg

  • Nomination Apartment building in Niš. --MrPanyGoff 13:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI. Dmitry Ivanov 16:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC).
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sunlit side looks a bit washed out with some clipping in highlights; perspective also looks fractionally unnatural, as if converging verticals have been over-corrected. (The fact that verticals appear to be completely parallel would support this guess). --Ubcule 12:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The perspective correction of verticals was minimal because the photo is taken from a long distance. As for the colors, it is normal for a mid-day photo but this doesn't make it of a low quality, after all this is not a FP candidate.--MrPanyGoff 16:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment To be fair, the perspective issue I described is marginal in this example (emphasis "fractionally unnatural") so perhaps I'm being picky because it reminds me of more egregious examples of the blanket "corrected verticals must be parallel" dogma. But the fact that it's noticeable at all is still annoying; the perspective in the roofline indicates that it isn't a *very* long distance shot (with near-parallel lack of perspective) and very minor convergence would still be expected.

        There *is* verifiable clipping on some (non-highlight) window reflections, though I accept that how big a problem this is considered may be a matter of opinion too.

        (Pulling down the gamma seems to improve the sunny face, but it also makes the rest of the image quite dark. Though that isn't advice or something I'm asking you to do; it's just an observation). --Ubcule (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as for Ubcule. Also slight pincushion distortion. -- Smial 14:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok for me --Christian Ferrer 18:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok for me too.--Hubertl 03:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 03:35, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Block in Pirot.jpg[edit]

Block in Pirot.jpg

  • Nomination Residential building in the city center of Pirot. --MrPanyGoff 17:33, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Code 07:02, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good photo, and maybe I'm being picky but... perspective not quite right. Looks like converging verticals have been a little over-corrected (i.e. near-parallel) which in itself always appears a bit unnatural to me- you'd expect a *little* convergence in nature. I'm guessing from the angle of the non-verticals that the original was quite noticeably different? --Ubcule 23:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too strong distortrt. --Ralf Roletschek 14:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Images of architecture should usually be rectilinear. --C messier 14:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Where does this "rule" originate from? I understand that some architectural projections use it, but that doesn't mean it's natural in appearance or suitable for every purpose. My suspicion is that it's being blindly applied as a blanket rule beyond its original intended use. The simple fact is that unless it's been photographed from a significant distance using a telephoto, a tall building like this would always show at least *some* vertical perspective (both in photos and when viewed in person). Because it doesn't do that, the "corrected" photo gives the opposite (and vaguely unnatural) impression of bulging at the top.

      That would apply even if it had been taken straight on, and the roof line was horizontal. However, in this case there's the additional problem that one *can't* correct perspective in all directions in post-processing, so the angled roof line looks more exaggerated and mismatched with the verticals. (If it was a genuine telephoto image, the roof line would show a corresponding reduction in perspective). In short, this isn't a perspective you'd see in nature, which is why (IMHO) it looks slightly unnatural.

      I want to make clear that I'm not opposed to correction of converging verticals. Frankly, they *can* make buildings look like they're "falling over" and if the corrected result retains a plausible amount of perspective like this, it's fine. What I'm opposed to is over-correction to an extent that goes beyond natural.

      I also *don't* want to come across as if I'm being overly harsh on this specific image. It's not an especially bad example of the issues described; it just happens to be the one we're judging. If anything, this image shows it more strongly.

      There may be a case for vertically-aligned ("architectural"?) projections in some situations, but it has to be accepted that this isn't always going to look natural, nor flattering to the subject. --Ubcule (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMHO overcorrected perspective. Ubcule made a very good and clear statement to that point. Thanks! --Dirtsc 13:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as others --Hubertl 03:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 03:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Dzembronia_26-110-5020_DSC_2285.jpg[edit]

Dzembronia 26-110-5020 DSC 2285.jpg

  • Nomination Dzembronia mountain, Carpathian National Park. By User:Haidamac --Ата 18:37, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ermell 20:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. Too small resolution for such kind of motif and a 24 MPix camera --Cccefalon 06:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support resolution as others QI --Grtek 11:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support +1 --Ralf Roletschek 14:12, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's this "easy to take" thing. Some downscaling is absolutely ok, not every photographer has high end lenses and images taken with usual kit lenses look mostly much better if downscaled for some amount. With my old *istDs, a 6 MPix-CCD camera I often used about (linear) 80%. For reasons. But this image has been taken with a rather modern camera and not the worst lens, so I cannot accept a (linear) downscaling to less than 55% resp. less than 30% in pixel count. --Smial 09:31, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I too think that such a motíf should have a higher resolution, but it's not strictly required in the rules. I'm more concerned with the fact that there is some kind of camera shake or something in the lower section (see note).--Peulle 14:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment seems to me as moving cow... --Grtek 20:50, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support due to fine composition, despite small resolution. --Palauenc05 19:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Palauenc05 19:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)