Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 21 2020

Consensual review edit

File:"AUS_DER_GESCHICHTE_DES_RATHAUSES"-Infoschild_Rathaus_Hof_20200214_RAW.png edit

 

  • Nomination An information board located at the Hofer town hall. --PantheraLeo1359531 10:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
      Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 18:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
      Oppose I disagree, not sharp enough for QI, imho. --Sandro Halank 20:49, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree (especially the top part is unsharp), given that this is 2019 and expectations of a stationary object should be higher than this.--Peulle 08:23, 18 February 2020 (UTC) Even 2020 ;) --PantheraLeo1359531 21:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

  I withdraw my nomination I will offer a better image sometime :) --PantheraLeo1359531 16:25, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Seven Pandas 22:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Train_station,_Flensburg_(P1060149).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Flensburg train station --MB-one 12:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
      Oppose Insufficient quality. --Beninho 19:56, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
    Please give a reason. --MB-one 12:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Question - Is it a bit overexposed? -- Ikan Kekek 07:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment I don't see any clipping or even loss of detail apart from the bright lights at the top. --MB-one 10:38, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 08:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

File:Vista_del_Puerto_de_Victoria_desde_Sky100,_Hong_Kong,_2013-08-09,_DD_13.JPG edit

 

  • Nomination View of the Victoria Harbour from Sky100, Hong Kong --Poco a poco 17:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline
      Oppose IMHO severals artifacts and not focus --Wilfredor 19:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Good for me, please discuss. -- Spurzem 19:32, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support This looks also good for me for a night image with over a second exposure time. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Not sharp enough. -- Ikan Kekek 08:34, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Ikan Kekek --Cvmontuy 05:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Why the new development? The first version has better composition and looks more natural in my opinion. --Smial 16:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 08:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)