Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 19 2022

Consensual review

edit

File:Tamar_Getter_2019.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Israeli artist Tamar Getter. By User:Arielinson --Tomer T 12:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Oppose Too unsharp. Sorry. --Imehling 11:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Ok, I've taken another look. The picture is not unsharp but the colors look faded on my screen. It's certainly good enough to have a discussion about it. --Imehling 06:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Her face and neck are either unsharp and/or posterized to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek 05:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
  • It's a pity. A beautiful picture with not so good technical quality. Perhaps a candidate for VI? --Imehling 08:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
  • A cropped version of this could definitely be a VI.--Peulle 12:11, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 07:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Serengeti_National_Park_2021-09_-_Polemaetus_bellicosus_-_martial_eagle.jpg

edit

 

  • Nomination Polemaetus bellicosus. By User:Snowmanstudios --IamMM 13:13, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --VileGecko 13:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I disagree. The feathers on the head are totally blurry. --Steindy 19:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support: I understand the argument about the head being the most important factor in whether a photo is a QI or not, but the overall impression is good to me. -- Ikan Kekek 21:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Good enough for me --PantheraLeo1359531 15:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Steindy. --Fischer.H 07:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support good enough. Tomer T 13:19, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support --Palauenc05 08:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Peulle 07:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)