Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 07 2022

Consensual review edit

File:Esterhazy_castle_in_Eisenstadt_(1).jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Esterhazy castle in Eisenstadt, Burgenland, Austria. --Tournasol7 06:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Support Good quality. --Ercé 07:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree Technically good, but the crop is debatable. The building is incomplete on the left. Why are just a few meters missing? --Milseburg 10:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support The picture is very sharp and the perspective is perfect, I disagree. The crop is the crop. It is diffuclt to take a picture of a long building. This is a picture of one part of the building. --Sebring12Hrs 10:35, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
    •   Comment It would be less of a problem if it was really clear which part of the building is to be shown here. But since only a small part is missing, I don't know why. A slightly different setting would have shown the whole front. --Milseburg 13:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

File:Closewing_position_of_Hasora_anura_de_Nicéville,_1889_-_Slate_Awl_2.jpg edit

 

  • Nomination Closewing position of Hasora anura de Nicéville, 1889 - Slate Awl. (by MaheshBaruahwildlife) --Atudu 10:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
      Oppose Dust spots and widely unsharp. Better alternatives available. --Hillopo2018 10:09, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
      Support OK for QI --Charlesjsharp 09:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
      Oppose for now: lots of dust or water spots, per Hillopo. -- Ikan Kekek 02:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   -Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:08, 4 October 2022 (UTC)