Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives March 07 2016

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Consensual review[edit]

File:Mergus_serrator_M_F_Toronto.JPG[edit]

  • Nomination Male and female red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator) on the Lake Ontario, Toronto --Mykola Swarnyk 07:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Good quality. --Hubertl 10:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree: It is not sharp enough for an animal photo of this short distance. The fine details are missing. --Cccefalon 16:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Agree with Cccefalon, it isn't far from QI but not yet there, too soft --Poco a poco 12:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 01:20, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

File:Pirate_-_Peter_Pan_-_20150803_16h49_(10859).jpg[edit]

  • Nomination Pirate in Peter Pan at the Disney Magic On Parade in Disneyland Paris. -- Medium69 11:29, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Support Do not F 2.8 in my opinion the best choice, but for me good quality.--Famberhorst 15:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, the crop with two cut hands is very unfortunate. --Cccefalon 05:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
     Comment I also emphasize our rule Carefully select your best images to nominate. You took 12 photos of this guy in 16 seconds and nominated 10 of them so far to QIC. Unfortunately, most of this images are lacking the carefulness of choosing the right display window. It is IMHO very questionable, if mass uploading of sheer snapshots falls under the criterion of meaningful contribution to the goals of WikiCommons. However, at any rate, it is not a good example of contributing to QIC. Cheers, --CEphoto, Uwe Aranas (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose as Cccefalon. --Hubertl 09:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Hubertl 01:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)