Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 14 2017

Consensual review edit

File:Munich (15).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination New Town Hall of Munich, Germany. --Marrovi 07:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Serious perspective problems and top crop is not done good enough --Michielverbeek 07:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment No professional argument.--Marrovi 03:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Arguments are according to the QI guide lines. --Basotxerri 10:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Weird, but not a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 06:28, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Michiel and Ikan. --Basotxerri 10:12, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Michielverbeek. --Peulle 12:09, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As above, --Tournasol7 19:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose →   Declined   --PumpkinSky 16:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Dolomitas (1).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Dolomitti National Park, Italy. --Marrovi 07:23, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --Ercé 07:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Tilted to the left and too blurry/noisy for a QI. The description is very poor. --Milseburg 18:25, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as for Milseburg --Smial 00:48, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with the others.--Peulle 20:39, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 11:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

File:2014_Kaplica_Zwiastowania_NMP_w_Bardzie,_09.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination Mount Rosary chapels in Bardo 3 --Jacek Halicki 09:20, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ermell 13:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree! Another boring pic here, but anyway, these focus are the bricks, and not the middle of sign or sense of foccs Maximun a snap and not wealthy. --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 18:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment QIs can be boring, "not boring" is something to be reviewed at Featured Pictures. --Basotxerri 09:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I understand the QI Rules, like reduce the fotographers view, like with REPRO-Rules or architecture. Here I still think, it´s only a blank cut. The pic forced my eyes to the bricks not the sign. Normally I wanna see that the picmaker gives me a line or leading "Point of View" --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 07:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp, good light. Composition a little bit weak. But overall good as QI. --Dirtsc 07:40, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Cannot see issues regarding QI rules.--Smial 14:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok.--Famberhorst 07:54, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 11:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

File:2017-07-02-zoo_cgn-3117.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination: Bison in Cologne Zoo --Superbass 17:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Review
  •   Support Good quality. --Peulle 18:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Noise and overexposed parts --Llez 13:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp and pleasant lighting IMO -- Basile Morin 10:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now. "3.Quality images shall have a meaningful file name." Please change the file name. --W.carter 12:26, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per cart. -- Ikan Kekek 01:39, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality, beautiful picture for me.--Marrovi 03:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

*  Oppose invalid file name and over exposed. PumpkinSky 16:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC) @PumpkinSky: I´ve already closed this discussion as "Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days" You can´t open it again by opposing and close it a few minutes later as declined. --Milseburg (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Milseburg (talk) 17:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)