Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 12 2016

Consensual review edit

File:Clay_Pots-BW-IMG_7303.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Clay Pots (Ghaila) 02 --Bijay chaurasia 15:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Do you have color photo of this file ? why this is in BW, could you please explain on it. --Bijaya2043 08:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment B&W photo is an artform in itself. There is even a FP category for it: Commons:Featured pictures/Black and white. I don't think the photographer needs to explain why s(he) chose it, no other choise of format needs to be explained here. --W.carter 13:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment B&W can and even must have wow. Quality must have purpose the wow is optional. -- RaboKarbakian 16:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality IMO--Lmbuga 01:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 07:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good quality. --W.carter 13:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 18:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Torralba,_chiesa_di_Nostra_Signora_di_Cabu_Abbas_(11).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Chiesa romanica di Nostra Signora di Cabu Abbas, Torralba, Italy (sec. XII - XIII). --Discanto 05:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Quality high enough for a Q1photo --Michielverbeek 06:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree -   chromatic aberrations should be removed, at the very least --A.Savin 16:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Strong oppose: As A.Savin and pour detail, perspective distortion... 14:22 h. is not the best time to take this picture, sorry. --Lmbuga (talk) 21:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Hubertl 18:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

File:16-09-17-WikiLovesCocktails-Zutaten-Img0148.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Birnen --Ralf Roletschek 01:53, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Comment Image is QI but categorization and description are not. --Ajepbah 06:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Comment Would be nice if the cut glass bowl was also mentioned. W.carter 10:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok now. Good quality. --W.carter 21:21, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I have thought about it some more and while the image itself is good, the file name really is not in accordance with the Guidelines' specifications for a meaningful file name. Since there is no hope for a file name change since the photographer is adamant that he will not change them, I must vote to oppose.--Peulle 17:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support name change Ralf Roletschek --PetarM 18:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • {{o}} Sorry, poor quality for a study picture. I can't understand the "supports". Poor quality IMO --Lmbuga 21:05, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Vote changed--Lmbuga 14:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good enough for QI, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 21:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Haeferl 01:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Hubertl 18:03, 11 November 2016 (UTC)