Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Young domestic sheep
- nominator -- nomination withdrawn Alokprasad84 (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Grainy, artifacts, blown highlights (great composition, though).--HereToHelp (talk to me) 10:34, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- i cant understand why u r opposing this image. this image is already selectes as Quality image on wikicommons as well as featured picture on Turkish Wikipedia - Alokprasad84 (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- The Turkish Wikipedia may have much lower standards than the English WP, as they do not have nearly so many images or contributors. As for Commons, they usually have higher standards than we do - having looked at the Quality Images requirements page there, I feel it doesn't meet the criteria. I may nominate it for delisting there when I've found out how to do so. I've also corrected your links in that comment - they were broken. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- There currently is no such process at Commons. You might wish to comment here. Thegreenj 20:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- The Turkish Wikipedia may have much lower standards than the English WP, as they do not have nearly so many images or contributors. As for Commons, they usually have higher standards than we do - having looked at the Quality Images requirements page there, I feel it doesn't meet the criteria. I may nominate it for delisting there when I've found out how to do so. I've also corrected your links in that comment - they were broken. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- i cant understand why u r opposing this image. this image is already selectes as Quality image on wikicommons as well as featured picture on Turkish Wikipedia - Alokprasad84 (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Support Good quality, good composition.Frankie816 (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per HereToHelp. Surprised this made QI anywhere. Mfield (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Horrible quality. 8thstar 15:14, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose per HereToHelp. Not so sharp at high zoom, grainy, blown highlights. --Bridgecross (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Very grainy and blown. As to that fact that it is featured elsewhere, that is why each wiki has its own approval process- what passed on the Commons may not pass here. Clegs (talk) 17:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose - very unsharp, bad quality. Not by any means stunning. It's also a low quality crop of a Commons image - this one, Lamb210508.jpg is a duplicate of Commons' Lamb 09807-a.jpg. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 19:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
- i withdrew my nomination Alokprasad84 (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Not promoted
- Withdrawn. Julia\talk 21:32, 24 June 2012 (UTC)