Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives February 08 2022

• 
  • Nomination View of the peninsula from the High Gloriette, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 02:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. Lovely composition! --Tagooty 02:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Southern part of Johannes-Brahms-Promenade, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 02:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Tagooty 02:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Apartment building on Annastraße #25, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 02:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Tagooty 02:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Paul Gartler, goalkeeper of Austria U21. --Steindy 00:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Frank Schulenburg 00:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination View over landscape in Oberlinxweiler, part of Sankt Wendel --DavidJRasp 22:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Sorry! Too many dust spots in the sky. --Steindy 00:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination View from the Hofgarten on the Theatinerkirche in Munich. The view is obscured by fog. --DavidJRasp 22:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 00:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Northern pintail (Anas acuta) drake in flight at the Llano Seco Unit of the Sacramento National Wildlife Refuge, Butte County, California --Frank Schulenburg 20:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality, great capture! --Radomianin 22:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Panoramic view of Hama city centre, Syria. --Argenberg 19:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality, but I would prefer a b&w one --Michielverbeek 19:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination View of Emmersdorf an der Donau town from Melk Abbey park --Jakubhal 18:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Argenberg 19:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Contemporary sculpture of donkey in Toruń, in the form of the pillory which existed in this place in the 18th century --Jakubhal 17:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 17:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Wallfahrtskirche Maria zur Kalten Herberge oberhalb von Schmirn in Tirol - Weihwasserkessel --Kritzolina 17:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 17:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Medieval capital and cross in the City Museum Simeonstift, Trier. --Palauenc05 12:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 17:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination A canal, Bình Đức commune, Châu Thành district, Tiền Giang, Vietnam -- Khả Vân Đại Hãn 11:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline  Oppose Sky overexposed. --A.Savin 17:59, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Suzdal. Kamenka River. Church of the Epiphany and Church of the Nativity of John the Baptist --Alexxx1979 09:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion OK. --A.Savin 17:56, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Five Dragons Pavilions at Beihai Park in Beijing --Ermell 08:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 17:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination View of the Beijing TV Tower --Ermell 08:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    Good image. Sensor spots lower left, right middle. --Tagooty 09:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Done I found some more and hope i got them all. Thanks for the review.--Ermell 09:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Tagooty 10:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Shop in Beijing --Ermell 08:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality. --Palauenc05 16:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Gates on the grounds of the Temple of Heaven in Beijing --Ermell 08:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 13:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Intercontinal Hotel in the financial district in Beijing --Ermell 08:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 13:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Glossy ibis (Plegadis falcinellus) flying in formation, Sholinganallur, Chennai --Tagooty 08:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Charlesjsharp 21:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Kalaignar Karunanidhi Salai Bridge and residential complex, Sholinganallur, Chennai --Tagooty 08:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 10:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Pied bushchat (m) (Saxicola caprata), Sholinganallur, Chennai --Tagooty 08:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
     Oppose Sorry! For me not sharp enough. Especially the eye and the beak. --Steindy 13:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
    As it is backlit, the eye is in shadow. I request other opinions, please. --Tagooty 14:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose backlit is Ok, but the image is not sharp enough. --Charlesjsharp 21:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
     I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the feedback --Tagooty 02:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Intermediate egret (Mesophoyx intermedia) taking-off, marshland, Sholinganallur, Chennai --Tagooty 08:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
     Oppose Sorry! For me not sharp enough. Especially the beak. --Steindy 13:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
    To me this composition of this backlit image is my reason for nominating it. --Tagooty 14:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
     Oppose not sharp enough --Charlesjsharp 21:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
     I withdraw my nomination Thanks for the feedback --Tagooty 02:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Trees in winter place Jean-Jaurès at en:Saint-Étienne, France --Touam 08:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 13:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Сад-сиренгарий на Щелковском шоссе, Северное Измайлово, Восточный округ, Москва. Sirengarium Garden on Shchelkovsky Highway --Ulaisaeva 08:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Main subject not in focus. Sorry. --Ermell 10:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Дворец, Вешняки, Восточный округ, Москва. Palace. Canteen --Ulaisaeva 08:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Decline
     Oppose Many artefacts and too blurry. The needed perspective correction is not realiseable. --Ermell 17:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sorano / Toscana - Monument of Acquedotto Vitozza-Sorano --Imehling 07:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality, but I think you could probably find at least one more relevant category, such as one for monuments. -- Ikan Kekek 08:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC) I've created the category "Monuments in Sorano". This town is unfortunately somewhat undercategorized. --Imehling 09:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Necropoli di Sovana / Toscana - Tombe a Semidado --Imehling 07:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 13:55, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sorano / Toscana - Piazza della Chiesa --Imehling 07:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality --Michielverbeek 07:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sorano / Toscana - Via Petrarca --Imehling 07:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 10:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Bled Island in Bled, Upper Carniola, Slovenia. --Tournasol7 07:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality --Michielverbeek 08:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Soča river in Trenta in the Municipality of Bovec, Goriška, Slovenia. --Tournasol7 07:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Very good quality. --Steindy 13:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Mala Mojstrovka and Nad Šitam seen from Vršič Pass, Goriška, Slovenia. --Tournasol7 07:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 14:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Prisojnik (2547 m) seen from Vršič Pass, Goriška, Slovenia. --Tournasol7 07:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 14:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Hattem, bridge over the city canal.
    --Agnes Monkelbaan 05:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 05:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination View of the peninsula from the High Gloriette, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 03:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Hibernal beech grove at the peninsula promenade on Landspitz, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 03:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 06:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Ship landing stage on Landspitz at the peninsulae, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 03:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Peninsula promenade on Landspitz, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 03:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 06:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Gazebo on the peninsula, Pörtschach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 03:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Sandro Ingolitsch, player of Austria U21. --Steindy 00:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 08:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Paul Gartler, goalkeeper of Austria U21. --Steindy 00:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Ermell 08:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Necropoli di Sovana / Toscana - Tomba Ildebranda --Imehling 09:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Tagooty 08:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Experiment with lens ball and light stick --XRay 04:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion  Support Good quality -- Johann Jaritz 05:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
     Comment Striking, but I see a couple of dust spots on the lower right. -- Ikan Kekek 12:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you. Sorry. It will be fixed within the next minutes. --XRay 06:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination: Bridgelayer BLG-60 at Pfingsttreffen Pütnitz 2018, Ribnitz-Damgarten --MB-one 16:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Review
    Noie should be reduced. --Ermell 23:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Aerial view over Cappadocia, nearby Gorëme, Turkey. By User:Gsahin17 --IamMM 14:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Kritzolina 19:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination National Museum of Natural History of Chile --Rjcastillo 22:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 14:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Lucca / Toscana - Backside of Cattedrale di San Martino --Imehling 08:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 14:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Pumice mining on Gyali island. Greece --Ввласенко 07:34, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 23:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Tea plantation of factory Chá Porto Formoso --Nino Verde 20:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Tagooty 15:04, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Fuente de los Peregrinos, Candelaria, Tenerife --Mike Peel 18:04, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
     Support Good quality. --Tagooty 15:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination CMS Tracker. By User:FerdinandoGior --IamMM 05:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion Good quality. --Imehling 07:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Panoramic view from the look-out-tower on Heimberg in Rhineland-Palatinate --Milseburg 17:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Yes, this image is large. --Milseburg 11:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion ...but good. --Imehling 08:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
• 
  • Nomination Lucca / Toscana - Front of Basilica di San Frediano --Imehling 17:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Promotion
    Perspective correction necessary. --Steindy 21:23, 27 January 2022 (UTC) Done--Imehling 10:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. Though the dark shadows are unfortunate. --Tagooty 15:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Steindy 22:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Consensual review

File:2022-01-16_Eberspächer_Luge_World_Cup_Oberhof_1DX_1339_by_Stepro-2.jpg

• Nomination Eberspächer Luge World Cup Oberhof: Sandra Robatscher (ITA). By --Stepro 17:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose not sharp enough --MIGORMCZ 18:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Somewhat low DOF if viewed in full size, but perfectly sharp enough for prints in A4 size or even larger. --Smial 10:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree with the first reviewer. This image appears blurry even at thumbnail size.--Peulle 10:19, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
  •  Comment You are of course free to judge, but how do you recognise blur in thumbnail size? In full resolution the lady's eyelashes are clearly visible and they are "sharp enough" in A4 size, but in thumbnail size I can at best see that there are eyelashes. But a sharpness assessment at that size? --Smial 12:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not looking at details, it just doesn't look sharp. Comparing with other (sharp) photos from the same photographer reinforced my opinion.--Peulle 07:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose I won't say it's unsharp to me at thumbnail size, but it definitely is unsharp simply on the file page without opening the photo. -- Ikan Kekek 12:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 10:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

File:2022-01-16_Eberspächer_Luge_World_Cup_Oberhof_1DX_1364_by_Stepro-2.jpg

• Nomination Eberspächer Luge World Cup Oberhof: Hannah Prock (AUT). By --Stepro 17:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
• Decline
•  Oppose not sharp enough --MIGORMCZ 18:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
•  Support I disagree. Somewhat low DOF if viewed in full size, but perfectly sharp enough for prints in A4 size or even larger. --Smial 10:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose I think this one is below the line in terms of sharpness. -- Ikan Kekek 12:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 10:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Mein_Schiff_4_(IMO_9678408),_Rostock.jpg

• Nomination Long exposure of the cruise ship Mein Schiff 4 in the port of Rostock, Germany. --Radomianin 20:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Good quality. --Frank Schulenburg 21:13, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Good quality.--Horst J. Meuter 21:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Bright areas are overxposed. Otherwise nice. --Nino Verde 06:17, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment Yeah, I think the highlights could be dialed down a bit. -- Ikan Kekek 09:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
•  New version uploaded Dear reviewers @Frank Schulenburg, Horst J. Meuter, Nino Verde, and Ikan Kekek: Thank you very much for your reviews and the constructive editing suggestion. Since I don't take photos in raw mode, it's actually impossible to reconstruct overexposed areas in the jpg file. Unfortunately, what is white is white. The only option I could think of was to cover the overexposed areas in Photoshop with a light gray layer, set the opacity to 15%, and select the layer blend mode Multiply. Regrettably, more opacity looks unnatural. Best wishes :) -- Radomianin (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

•  Question Are you sure you uploaded the new version? I'm not seeing any difference. -- Ikan Kekek 21:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment Thank you for your question, Ikan. Yes, I uploaded the edited version, the difference is only slight. The opacity of the light gray layer is only 15%. I tried using more opacity but it looked unnatural. The difference is visible in direct comparison in full screen mode or at 100% view in the detail of an overexposed area. In such bright areas there is no image information, therefore reconstruction is impossible. Best wishes :) -- Radomianin 21:54, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment I did compare at 100%. I guess that shows the limits of my eyesight... -- Ikan Kekek 00:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

•  Support An impressive view, conveys something of the vibrant energy you feel when you stand right on the pier in front of a big ship ready to depart. Regarding exposure this is a very difficult situation: a night shot of a brightly lit ship must handle an extreme range of contrast. Therefore IMHO the photo is fine. When some extreme highlights are actually extremely bright, it is OK to let them clip because that’s realistic – our eyes would not see much in these extremely bright spots, too; it’s more important that the midtones are exposed correctly and that the darker areas of the photo are still recognizable.--Aristeas 10:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
•  Support per others. --Milseburg 18:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   -- Radomianin 20:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Suzdal._Kamenka_River._Church_of_Elijah_the_Prophet_P7140121_2350.jpg

• Nomination Suzdal. Kamenka River. Church of Elijah the Prophet --Alexxx1979 09:27, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Good quality. --Nino Verde 14:26, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment Really striking photo, a possible FP in spite of not being twice as large, but alas, I have the feeling that the greens are oversaturated and the water is too green. What do you think, Alexxx1979? -- Ikan Kekek 14:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose per above - let's have a discussion. -- Ikan Kekek 00:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
•  Support--Moroder 13:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Agree that the greens are quite saturated, but at least on my monitor they look still realistic, and the overall impression is OK. --Aristeas 10:05, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Ikan. --Smial 11:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
•  Support per Aristeas. --Milseburg 18:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 10:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Painted_Finch_at_Trephina_Gorge_Nature_Park_Northern_Territory_Australia.jpg

• Nomination Emblema pictum. By User:PotMart186 --IamMM 14:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Good quality. --Charlesjsharp 16:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Head is unfocused, the whole picture is unsharp. --A.Savin 00:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
• Weak  Support: It's true that the bird is not sharp at full size, but there are a lot of great details that are visible, so I think it's on the right side of the line but welcome more opinions. -- Ikan Kekek 10:00, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
•  Support per Ikan. Perfectly printable to A4 size. --Smial 20:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose per Savin. --Tagooty 02:52, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 10:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Lucia_widow_(Palpopleura_lucia)_immature_male_Ghana.jpg

• Nomination Lucia widow (Palpopleura lucia) immature male --Charlesjsharp 10:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Promotion
•  Support Good quality. --Kritzolina 11:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose I disagree. Wings and tail are not sharp. --Steindy 16:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment Steindy seems to me to have a good point, but Charles, I'd like to give your take on this a fair hearing. -- Ikan Kekek 11:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment Revenge vote. Head and eyes are sharply in focus Ikan Kekek which is I think good for QI. Of course the wings are not in focus as you and anyone else with an understanding of depth of field would understand. Charlesjsharp 17:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I understand about the wings, but what about the tail? -- Ikan Kekek 20:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Has to be sharp for FPC, but for QI? FP from 2007! and an FP from 2015 that I voted against Charlesjsharp 14:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and links. I thought I remembered you voting to decline QIC noms over unsharp abdomens. That was at FPC only? -- Ikan Kekek 15:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

•  Support Good enough for me, insufficient DOF are normal limits of photography, specially on macros, if you don't use focus bracketing --Moroder 13:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
•  Support per Moroder. --Aristeas 09:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
• Weak  Support per Moroder. --Smial 12:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 10:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

File:Red-headed_rock_agama_(Agama_agama)_female_juvenile.jpg

• Nomination: Red-headed rock agama (Agama agama) juvenile --Charlesjsharp 10:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
• Review
•  Support Good quality. --Kritzolina 11:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose I disagree. Only the head is sharp. --Steindy 16:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
•  Support The eye is in focus and that’s most important. Of course more DoF would always be welcome but this is not table-top photography in the studio but real wildlife, therefore it’s good for me. --Aristeas (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
•  Oppose Not sharp, the false eye in the neck is unclear. Not upto the standards of Category:Quality images of Agama agama. --Tagooty 02:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Augustgeyler 15:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)