Commons:Candidatas a Imagens de qualidade

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Quality images candidates and the translation is 77% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Quality images candidates and have to be approved by a translation administrator.

Ir para as nomeações
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎svenska
float

Estas são as candidatas a tornarem-se Imagens de qualidade. Por favor, fique claro que não é o mesmo que Imagens especiais. Além disso, se você deseja obter informações sobre as suas imagens, pode consegui-las em Críticas fotográficas.

Objectivo

O objectico das Imagens de qualidade é incentivar as pessoas que são a base do Commons, os utilizadores individuais que fornecem imagens para ampliar esta colecção. Enquanto que as imagens especiais são as melhores de todas as imagens carregadas no Commons, as Imagens de qualidade servem para identificar e encorajar os esforços dos utilizadores para carregar imagens de qualidade no Commons.
Além disso, as imagens de qualidade podem ser um local onde outros utilizadores expliquem métodos para melhorar uma imagem.

Orientações

Todas as imagens nomeadas devem ser trabalho próprio dos utilizadores do Commons

Para os nomeadores

Aqui estão as diretrizes gerais para Imagens de qualidade, Below e orientações gerais para Imagens de qualidade; e outras orientações mais detalhadas estão disponíveis em Diretrizes de imagens.

Requisitos das imagens

  1. Status de direitos autorais. As candidatas a Imagens de qualidade foram carregadas no Commons pelo proprietário dos direitos autorais sob uma licença adequada. Os requisitos completos de licença estão disponíveis em COM:CT
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. Sem anúncios ou assinaturas na imagem. Os direitos de autor e informações de autoria devem ficar na página da imagem e podem estar nos metadados da imagem, mas não deve interferir no conteúdo da imagem.


Creator

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.

Requisitos técnicos

Critérios mais detalhados estão disponíveis em Diretrizes de imagens.

Resolução

As imagens do Commons podem ser usadas não só para visualizá-las no ecrã. Também podem ser usadas para impressão ou visualização em monitores de alta resolução. Não podemos prever quais dispositivos serão usados no futuro, por isso é importante que as imagens que são nomeadas tenham uma resolução razoavelmente alta. Normalmente o limite inferior é de 2 megapixels, mas para imagens 'fáceis de tomar', os revisores podem exigir muito mais.

Não se aplica a imagens SVG.

Qualidade das imagens

As imagens digitais estão sujeitas a vários problemas resultantes da captura e processamento da imagem, tais como ruídos, problemas com a compressão JPEG, falta de informação de zonas ou realces, ou problemas com a captura de cores. Todas estas questões devem ser tratadas adequadamente.

Composição e iluminação

A disposição do objecto principal de uma imagem deve contribuir para a própria imagem. Objectos em segundo plano não devem desviar a atenção. A iluminação e o foco também devem contribuir para o resultado global; o objecto principal tem de se destacar, ser completo e estar bem exposto.

Valor

Nosso principal objectivo é melhorar a qualidade das imagens que contribuem para o Wikicommons, algo valioso para os projectos da Wikimedia.

Como nomear

Basta adicionar uma linha deste formulário no topo da lista de candidatos da secção de Nomeações.

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Breve descrição  --~~~~ |}}

A descrição deve ser não mais do que algumas palavras, e por favor deixe uma linha em branco entre sua nova entrada e as demais.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Breve descrição  --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the Image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.


Number of nominations

A descrição deve ser não mais do que algumas palavras, e por favor deixe uma linha em branco entre sua nova entrada e as demais. A adição de mais de um par de imagens de uma só vez pode ser considerado flooding, o que é desaprovado.


Avaliando as imagens

Qualquer utilizador registado pode revisar um nomeação.
Quando um revisor avalia uma imagem deve considerar as mesmas diretrizes do nomeador.

Como revisar

Como actualizar o status

Examine cuidadosamente a imagem. Abre-a na resolução máxima, e veja se ela atende aos critérios de qualidade.

  • Se você decidir promover a nomeação, altere a linha relevante de
Image:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Breve descrição --~~~~ |}}

to

Image:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Breve descrição --Assinatura do nomeador |Por que você gostou. --~~~~}}

Em outras palavras, altere a predefinição de /Nomination para /Promotion e adicione a sua assinatura, possivelmente com algum pequeno comentário.

  • Se você decidir rejeitar a nomeação, altere a linha relevante de
Image:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Breve descrição --~~~~ |}}

to

Image:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Breve descrição --Assinatura do nomeador |Por que você não gostou --~~~~}}

Em outras palavras, altere a predefinição de /Nomination para /Decline e adicione a sua assinatura, possivelmente declarando os critérios pelos quais a imagem fracassou (podes usar os títulos das secções de diretrizes). Se houver muitos problemas, notifique os 2 ou 3 mais graves, ou adicione múltiplos problemas. Ao rejeitar uma nomeação, por favor, explique as razões na página de discussão do nomeador - em regra, seja agradável e estimulante! Na mensagem, você deve dar uma explicação mais detalhada de sua decisão.

Nota: Por favor, avalie primeiramente as imagens mais antigas.


Período de tolerância e promoção

Se não houver objecções no período de 2 dias (exactamente 48 horas) desde a sua revisão, a imagem será promovida ou rejeitada, de acordo com a revisão que recebeu. Se você possuir objecções, mova a imagem para a secção Consensual review.

Como executar uma decisão

QICbot trabalha automaticamente nisso 2 dias depois de a decisão ter sido tomada, e as imagens promovidas são armazenadas em Promovidas recentemente à espera de categorização e inserção automática em uma página apropriada das Imagens de qualidade.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then also nominate the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

  • As imagens que esperam uma revisão são mostradas em uma caixa azul
  • As imagens que o revisor aceitou são mostradas em uma caixa verde
  • As imagens que o revisor rejeitou são mostradas em uma caixa vermelha

Imagens não avaliadas (quadro azul)

As imagens nomeadas que não foram promovidas nem rejeitadas, ou que acabaram em consenso (que haja um número igual de oposições e apoios) após 8 dias nesta página devem ser removidas desta página sem promoção, armazenadas em Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives março 2015 e a categoria Unassessed QI candidates acrescentada à imagem.

Processo de revisão de consenso

Consensual review is a catch all place used in the case the procedure described above is insufficient and needs discussion for more opinions to emerge.

Como pedir uma revisão consensual

Para pedir uma revisão consensual, basta alterar /Promotion ou /Decline para /Discuss, e adicionar o seu comentário imediatamente após a revisão. Um bot automático irá movê-lo para a secção de revisão consensual dentro de um dia.

Por favor, somente envie coisas para a revisão consensual que foram revisadas como promovidas/rejeitadas. Se, como revisor, você não pode tomar uma decisão, adicione seu comentário, mas deixe o candidato nesta página.

Regras de revisão consensual

Veja Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules.

Actualização da página: purge this page's cache


Contents

Nominations

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures are only working on this page if you have Javascript enabled. If you do not have Javascript enabled please manually sign with

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 06h57min, 1 março 2015 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.
The new rule is effective now. Please nominate only a maximum of 5 images per day. [1]

March 1, 2015

February 28, 2015

February 27, 2015

February 26, 2015

February 25, 2015

February 24, 2015

February 23, 2015

February 22, 2015

February 21, 2015

February 20, 2015

February 19, 2015

February 18, 2015

February 17, 2015

February 16, 2015

Consensual review

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and Symbol support vote.svg Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".


Consensual Review

File:ČSD Class (IMG 8750).JPG

ČSD Class (IMG 8750).JPG

  • Nomeação A ČSD Class 451 (ČSD Class 451 045/046) departs from Zábřeh na Moravě station (Czech Republic). --Daniel Holý CZ 14:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão QI -- Spurzem 15:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting question.svg Question Maybe I am making a fool of myself but is this a Wikimedian’s work? --Kreuzschnabel 08:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    I am also in doubts. For me, it looks that the nominating user Daniel Holý CZ is uploading the work of some people with OTRS. However, this is not entitling the photos to participate in QIC. If this turns out to be the case, then there are some QI that have to be delisted. Example: The photo's author is Karel Furiš, but this [2] photos author is Viktor Zerzán. --Cccefalon 08:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Tagus in Toledo002.jpg

Tagus in Toledo002.jpg

  • Nomeação Tagus River in Toledo.--لا روسا 00:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Shadow parts need brightening. Maybe you can sharpen it a bit too. --Hockei 18:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Hard to say. The dark parts are better now. But I'm not quite convinced about the sharpness. I think you have used unsharp masking or sharpening only edges too strong. With this picture I cannot make it better. Sorry --Hockei 14:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    @Hockei: review it now.--لا روسا 11:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    I really don't know. Maybe other people can review it. --Hockei 12:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

File:The Temple of Hercules010.JPG

The Temple of Hercules010.JPG

  • Nomeação The Temple of Hercules, Amman.--لا روسا 12:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão Symbol support vote.svg Support QI -- Spurzem 12:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    IMHO, it needs perspective correction. --C messier 15:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done @C messier: review it now.--لا روسا 11:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Why needs it perspective correction? I know many images which are distorted by these modern duing and this here would not look better with absolutely vertical lines. -- Spurzem 20:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
@Spurzem: So i have to revert the original one.--لا روسا 21:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Kościół_św._Antoniego_w_Gołogłowach,_01.JPG

2014 Kościół św. Antoniego w Gołogłowach, 01.JPG

  • Nomeação Church of St. Anthony in Gołogłowy 1 --Jacek Halicki 10:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Top left looks overexposed, but IMO OK. But: It's too noisy. --XRay 12:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    I disagree, I denoised picture --Jacek Halicki 15:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks for denoising. It's better now, noise is still there, but acceptable.--XRay 06:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support QI Good quality the electric cable is not too disturbing --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 12:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Jerash Oval Plaza 003.JPG

Jerash Oval Plaza 003.JPG

  • Nomeação Jerash Oval Plaza.--لا روسا 00:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão JPEG artifacts in the sky. --MB-one 17:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC).
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, it was an autocorrect and not be artifact or unreal image. You can see the original one, if you want to replace it again.--لا روسا 11:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@MB-one: review it now.--لا روسا 21:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Van_Hool_A308_M3021_Demi-Lieue_STAR_-_Florian_Fèvre.JPG

Van Hool A308 M3021 Demi-Lieue STAR - Florian Fèvre.JPG

  • Nomeação Bus in Roanne --Billy69150 07:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão You didn't lose your subject this time (although once again, simplifying these with tighter crops will help) --Daniel Case 06:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    Seems to have a fair amount of perspective distortion, and brightness isn't great. --Mattbuck 22:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Hamamelis x intermedia 'Angelly'. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei.jpg

Hamamelis x intermedia 'Angelly'. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei.jpg

  • Nomeação Hamamelis x intermedia 'Angelly' (witch hazel). A nice selection of † Jan Van Heijningen.
    Famberhorst 16:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão * Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Do you have a different version, I miss sharpness! --Hubertl 16:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    *Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination.Unfortunately, I have only one photo.--Famberhorst 16:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Good quality. --XRay 16:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    If we're ignoring the withdrawal, then I'll have to Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose here as it's out of focus. -- KTC 22:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, something wrong. --XRay 04:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment May be, the quality is acceptable, but I don't want to contradict the withdrawel. Sorry. I've not seen the withdrawel. Sometimes it's not easy to review an images caused by edit conflicts or similar effects. So I removed my first review. --XRay 06:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


File:Poma_2000_Hôtel_de_Ville_-_Florian_FEVRE.jpg

Poma 2000 Hôtel de Ville - Florian FEVRE.jpg

  • Nomeação Poma in Laon --Billy69150 08:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão Below minimum size requirement. --Hubertl 13:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done --Billy69150 15:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment there are some Problems (CA, Fringe, perspective distortions), third opinion appreciated, see annotations.--Hubertl 15:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, mainly because of the composition. It is not clear what the (main) subject of this image is. I'd guess it's the train station and the people mover? In that case, there are way too much other things included in the image that distract from the subject. Too much sky. It's generally not a good idea to put the horizon at the vertical center of the frame (unless you have a very good reason to do so). Is the (half) house on the right edge of the frame really necessary? Fortunately, all this might be fixable with a careful, tighter crop. --El Grafo (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - CA, low JPEG quality. Mattbuck 22:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

File:2015_Snow_cover_collapsed.jpg

2015 Snow cover collapsed.jpg

  • Nomeação Collapsed snow cover over a beck in thaw --Kreuzschnabel 10:39, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Dnalor 01 10:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but the only thing in focus is the snow, the rest is blurred --Σπάρτακος 13:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Precisely this was my intention. See file name. --Kreuzschnabel 19:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The photo is doing exactly what a photographer wants to get, when he uses f/4,5 - a limited DoF. Nothing to complain here for me. --Cccefalon 12:54, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Gute Komposition. Der Schnee ist es wohl, worum es in diesem Bild geht. -- Spurzem 13:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 22:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Lisboa January 2015-46a.jpg

Lisboa January 2015-46a.jpg

  • Nomeação Monument to the Portuguese discoveries (silhouette), Lisboa, Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 12:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't understand why you nominate the picture again. Nothing changed since last time. The picture may be nice from an artistic point of view but the light situation is still not sufficient for QI. Are you hoping for different reviewers this time? --Code 20:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • No, I'm hoping for a wiser attitude from the old ones. Alvesgaspar 16:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • So you think that we were just not wise enough to review your picture properly? Don't you think that this is a quite disrespectful attitude? --Code 08:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes and no. Everybody makes mistakes and correcting them adds to the respect the others have on us. Alvesgaspar 12:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • To say that declining your nomination was a mistake doesn't make me respect you more. I would respect you if you could accept that not every picture you nominate has to be a QI in the eyes of others. It probably doesn't bother you but it makes me very sad what you're doing here. --Code 17:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. as the unvailing nomination a few days ago. --Hubertl 14:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why and nobody seems to be able to explain. Thus sent to CR (again), Alvesgaspar 14:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Same reason as last time. Nothing changed. Re-nominating after a decline without changing anything is disrespectful in my eyes (and probably against the rules). --Code 07:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Let me quote the reason of last time: Sorry, bad light situation. Monument is too dark. Yes, it is too dark, as in most contre-jour photographs, many of them QI or FP. In some cases, including the present one, contrast is enhanced in order to obtain the desired effect (see original here) For me to respect a technical review it ought to be intelectually respectable, which is obviously not the case here. Alvesgaspar 08:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The description says "Monumento to the Portuguese Discoveries (Padrão dos Descobrimentos), Lisboa, Portugal.". Unfortunately I don't see any monument on this picture. I see blue areas and black areas. That's it. And I don't see which value the picture should have regarding the project scope. As I already said this picture may be nice from an artistic point of view. But that's not what we ask for in QI. Additionally I somehow don't really understand the last sentence of your last comment, but I hope you didn't want to call me stupid. --Code 09:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You certainly do not represent the community when you state but that's not what we ask for in QI (bold added), especially knowing that there are several - probably hundreds of - silhouette and contre-jour quality images in Commons (please see here and here). As for not seing which value the picture should have regarding the project scope, that is certainly a limitation of your own eyes, probably based on a short-sighted idea of what the project scope really is. Alvesgaspar 14:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • First: I never said that I represented the community. Second: None of these pictures contains as little information as the one we're talking about in this case. Third: The fact that other (different) pictures were promoted doesn't give you any entitlement to have this one promoted, too. For me, this discussion is over at this point. This is getting too personal. I want no quarrel with you and I like most of your pictures. Let's see what the others think about your nomination. --Code 14:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As a normal picture, obviously this wouldn't be QI as the subject is too dark. As a silhouette as intended, this doesn't work for me either. It's kinda stuck in between being a silhouette and an under-exposed picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KTC (talk • contribs) 14:57, 27 February 2015‎ (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - As before, I think this is QI, the composition is clearly intentional. However I do think that renominating it so soon is bad form. Mattbuck 22:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 07:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

File:St Casimir Church Exterior At Dusk, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg

St Casimir Church Exterior At Dusk, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg

  • Nomeação Saint Casimir Church in Vilnius, Lithuania. (by Diliff) --Pofka 13:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The ghosts behind the red car don't disturb me, but a little bit denoising of the sky would be fine. --Code 08:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support seems ok to me. Mattbuck 22:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question @Mattbuck: Why do you think that the usual habits do not apply here? --Code 13:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I interpreted your comment as a suggestion of improvement, not of "this is not yet QI". Mattbuck 22:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Not opposing any longer. Doesn't seem as if anybody was interested in improving the quality of this picture. --Code 07:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 07:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Locatie, Natuurterrein De Famberhorst. (Alnus). Elzentak met katjes boven bevroren poel 02.jpg

Locatie, Natuurterrein De Famberhorst. (Alnus). Elzentak met katjes boven bevroren poel 02.jpg

  • Nomeação Location: The Natuurterrein Famberhorst. (Alnus). Elzentak with kittens above frozen lake.
    Famberhorst 05:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice, good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but it is too noisy for me and somehow unclear. --Hockei 18:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Hockei --MB-one 17:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

File:2015_Wieża_widokowa_na_Borówkowej_01.jpg

2015 Wieża widokowa na Borówkowej 01.jpg

✓ Done--Jacek Halicki 19:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry for being pedantic here, but it's not done. Roof is still sliding backwards, there are still two different perspectives in one image. Details here. --El Grafo 10:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 22:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose see El Grafo --Dirtsc 11:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Übertriebene Korrektur der Perspektive. -- Spurzem 13:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

File:2015_Wieża_widokowa_na_Borówkowej_02.jpg

2015 Wieża widokowa na Borówkowej 02.jpg

  • Nomeação Lookout tower on Borówkowa 2 --Jacek Halicki 09:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 09:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective overcorrection, see FPC nomination for details --El Grafo 16:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done--Jacek Halicki 19:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry for being pedantic here, but it's not done. Roof is still sliding backwards, there are still two different perspectives in one image. Details here. --El Grafo 10:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose see El Grafo --Dirtsc 11:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Schade, aber das Dach wirkt hier wie bei den folgenden Bildern unnatürlich oder unwirklich. -- Spurzem 13:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

File:2015_Wieża_widokowa_na_Borówkowej_03.jpg

2015 Wieża widokowa na Borówkowej 03.jpg

  • Nomeação Lookout tower on Borówkowa 3 --Jacek Halicki 09:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective overcorrection, see FPC nomination for details --El Grafo 16:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree --Hubertl 16:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
      • I do agree. This image has a high EV though to show when perspective correction is unsuitable. Vielleicht haben wir unterschiedliche Sehgewohnheiten, aber mein Auge sagt mir hier eindeutig, daß das Dach in einem Winkel von mindestens 30 Grad nach hinten gekippt ist, erst meine Vernunft sagt, daß das wohl kaum der Fall ist, worauf mein Auge mit „sieht man doch“ dagegenhält. So entsteht kein harmonischer Bildeindruck. Das liegt daran, daß man zwar die perspektivische Verjüngung korrigieren kann, aber nicht die Perspektive selbst: Von diesem Standpunkt wird die Kamera das Dach immer von unten sehen, was bei geraden Seitenwänden nur möglich ist, indem das Dach nach hinten kippt. --Kreuzschnabel 06:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I totally agree with Kreuzschnabel. Endlich mal einer der das klar ausspricht. Danke! --Dirtsc 08:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As El Grafo, --Dirtsc 08:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done--Jacek Halicki 19:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry for being pedantic here, but it's not done. Roof is still sliding backwards, there are still two different perspectives in one image. Details here. --El Grafo 10:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Hier sieht man, dass wir es mit der Forderung nach „perspective correction“ nicht übertreiben sollten. Dieser Tage war hier ein Bild mit völlig verzerrtem Kronleuchter zu sehen, aber die Säulen links und rechts standen absolut gerade. -- Spurzem 20:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

File:2015_Wieża_widokowa_na_Borówkowej_04.jpg

2015 Wieża widokowa na Borówkowej 04.jpg

  • Nomeação Lookout tower on Borówkowa 4 --Jacek Halicki 09:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 10:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective overcorrection, see FPC nomination for details --El Grafo 16:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done--Jacek Halicki 18:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry for being pedantic here, but it's not done. Roof is still sliding backwards, there are still two different perspectives in one image. Details here. --El Grafo 10:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 12:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Σπάρτακος 13:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bitte nichts für ungut. Aber die übertriebene Korrektur der Perspektive zerstört den Eindruck der Wirklichkeit. -- Spurzem 20:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose see El Grafo and Spurzem --Dirtsc 11:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

File:2015_Wieża_widokowa_na_Borówkowej_05.jpg

2015 Wieża widokowa na Borówkowej 05.jpg

  • Nomeação Lookout tower on Borówkowa 5 --Jacek Halicki 09:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 09:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective overcorrection, see FPC nomination for details --El Grafo 16:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed --Jacek Halicki 18:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry for being pedantic here, but it's not done. Roof is still sliding backwards, there are still two different perspectives in one image. Details here. --El Grafo 10:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Sei mir bitte nicht böse. Aber lässt sich der Turm nicht aus größerer Entfernung mit längerer Brennweite fotografieren? Auf jedem der drei Bilder wirkt er absolut unnatürlich. -- Spurzem 21:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose see El Grafo and Spurzem--Dirtsc 11:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Nysa,_kościół_św._Jakuba_Starszego_062.JPG

2014 Nysa, kościół św. Jakuba Starszego 062.JPG

  • Nomeação Saints James and Agnes Basilica in Nysa 1 --Jacek Halicki 09:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The stained glass window is unsharp,.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 11:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão  Not done --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Heuliez_GX_427_Hybride_n°200_Réseau_Mistral_Liberté_-_Florian_Fèvre.JPG

Heuliez GX 427 Hybride n°200 Réseau Mistral Liberté - Florian Fèvre.JPG

  • Nomeação Bus in Toulon --Billy69150 12:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão No real issues; could be improved with tighter cropping, though --Daniel Case 06:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    Overexposure in the baclground, and too loose a crop on the left - I find my eye gets drawn left away from the subject. --Mattbuck 21:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good lighting, good composition and good sharpness. Therefore QI for me. -- Spurzem 21:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Klinikum_Bayreuth_November_21014.JPG

Klinikum Bayreuth November 21014.JPG

  • Nomeação Bayreuth Medical Center, west facade --J. Lunau 11:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Commentsky overexposed--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 13:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done thank you for your review J. Lunau 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support perhaps too blueish, but It's better; . --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 15:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • It's vignetting, and I'm not really convinced from the level of detail.--C messier 17:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Funny, I took almost the same picture two months earlier ;-) The sky looks better now, but the change made the vignetting much more prominent (could probably be fixed easily in Rawtherapee with the right lens profile – I can check if I have one lying around on my HD) and everything that is not sky seems too dark. Also, there has been a loss of detail - looks like it may be due to a combination of sharpening and de-noising? --El Grafo (talk) 16:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Hello El Grafo, thanks for your review. As notice in upload comments, i only did exposure correction and USM, no de-noising. I noticed the funny coincidence while I set the category for this photo. My shot was done by intent at sunset, which gives the special colors but of course leads also to loss of details. I never tried working with lens profiles in Rawtherapee, so this is my opportunity to learn. If it works, I will upload a better version.--J. Lunau 18:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
      Hi J. Lunau, then maybe it was the USM alone – if you compare the two versions, the later one has some strange artifacts (you'll have to zoom in to 100% and then have a look at some details like the windsock, the car at the left or the street lamps around it). I've found a correction profile for your lens – if you ping me via wikimail I can send it to you. Cheers, --El Grafo 20:20, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
      ✓ Done Hi El Grafo, thanks for your helpful hints and the offered support. I've uploaded a new version with lens correction profile in use and I think it is much better now.--J. Lunau 23:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Wonderful! I always enjoy seeing your pictures!--LuminitaM 18:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg SupportPentru this mean You have my vote!--LuminitaM 21:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Cambridge railway station MMB 09 317340.jpg

Cambridge railway station MMB 09 317340.jpg

  • Nomeação 317430 at Cambridge. Mattbuck 07:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 10:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. The lighting is good, but it seems, that on that 3rd of May it has more than 30° Celsius. Its blurrish - even there, where there is no heat (train), its unsharp too. --Hubertl 16:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't need to be that hot to generate a heat haze, especially as railways tend to reflect heat fairly well, and trains, even electric ones, put out quite a lot of heat themselves. I'll be honest I'm not 100% sold on this myself. Mattbuck 22:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
I realized, that there will be a heat haze near the locomotive, but look to the very right side. There is no heat source at all. --Hubertl 17:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
It's a sunny day, bright stones reflect heat well. It's certainly a heat haze. Mattbuck 20:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
It is heat haze from the sun (no high temperatures required, it’s a matter of temperature gradients in the air. I shot a heat-hazed picture of a barn roof yesterday at 6 °C) blurring nearly everything of interest within the frame. Thus, Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose from me – except showing heat haze is the intention here but the file name does not suggest this. --Kreuzschnabel 09:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough for QIC. -- Smial 16:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: I tend to agree with Hubertl. --El Grafo 17:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Residenset_Nyköping_February_2015.jpg

Residenset Nyköping February 2015.jpg

  • Nomeação County Governor's Residence. --ArildV 13:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão the tower of the church is strangely bent. --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 15:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Probably because of an extreme wide angle, I do not think it can be corrected.--ArildV 13:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you but I would like to discuss it.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 11:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm afraid that such a distortion isn't be acceptable. Sorry. --C messier 18:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In fact that's what I thought --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 11:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Uro_boy.jpg

Uro boy.jpg

  • Nomeação Boy from the Uro Islands, Peru. -- Christopher Crouzet 12:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice portrait and composition, sharp face - QI for me; just a question: What about personality rights warning for this boy? -- Achim Raschka 14:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose due to overexposure on the jumper, I'd also say the image seems a bit blue. --Mattbuck 16:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice scene but overexposed --Kreuzschnabel 07:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good image and suitable exposure, otherwise his face would be too dark --Shansov.net 14:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IBTD. In a quality image, contrast should be dealt with skilfully instead of overexposing most of the pic IMHO. There are several ways of brightening a shady face. --Kreuzschnabel 09:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good image and propper exposure--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 05:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Αστεροσκοπείο Αθηνών 6845.JPG

Αστεροσκοπείο Αθηνών 6845.JPG

  • Nomeação Athens Observatory as seen from Pnyx. --C messier 23:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. Nice image, but IMO sharpness not the best and CAs. --XRay 08:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
    Uploaded a sharpened version. XRay can you leave a note for the CAs? --C messier 16:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I added a note.--XRay 16:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)✓ Done --C messier 17:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Σπάρτακος 13:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK now.--XRay 12:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice! and good quality --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Eleventh_station_of_the_cross_in_Laghel_Arco.jpg

Eleventh station of the cross in Laghel Arco.jpg

  • Nomeação The eleventh station of the Way of the Cross in Laghel Arco - Jesus is nailed to the cross‎.‎ --Moroder 18:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão
  • The actual shrine being depicted so small, I think you wanted to show the surroundings and steep road as well. Composition does not work for me though, and the lighting is poor since most of the frame is in shadow while the cloud on the top left is blown. Framing suggestion added, maybe you can re-take this in better light. I’d suggest to use a longer focal length from wider distance to obtain a denser composition. As yet it’s a weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose from me. --Kreuzschnabel 09:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review. I believe the crop is the best to see the environment as with all other stations. The sky is technically not overblown even if the clouds are not structured. I can't take it from a wider distance since I dont have a fliying tripod ;-) I'd like to hear the opinion of others. --Moroder 14:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support this crop gives me a good impression of the ambience.--Hubertl 18:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Giraffe 09723.JPG

Giraffe 09723.JPG

  • Nomeação Giraffa camelopardalis - Mysore Zoo --Vengolis 14:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no good crop ..--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:49, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I would like to discuss it, because its not a crop. its the füll picture, probably the photographer wanted it like this. --Hubertl 02:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • still Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The author decided to take just a part of the animal into the frame. I see nothing wrong with that. It’s sharp and well-lit. Still the roof in the background (behind the head) indicates a CCW tilt, I won’t believe that structure is really this slanted. Will support as soon as this issue has been fixed. --Kreuzschnabel 08:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Platalea leucorodia, Israel.jpg

Platalea leucorodia, Israel.jpg

  • Nomeação Platalea leucorodia in Hula Valley, Israel. --מינוזיג 10:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. hazy, unsharp, int the left part, the beak of the bird is disturbing it hides the animal's feet.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 16:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg NeutralThe bird is sharp. This species is famous for its beak, not the feet (which are not trully hidden). I will support when the green halo over the back of the bird is removed and IMHO is a bit underexposed. --C messier 22:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not done and a bit too small DOF. --C messier 15:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose Genereally nice but poor framing (left half of frame is entirely uninteresting, not even a nice background for compositional aspects – cropping would take the pic close to the lower pixelage limit) and too shallow DoF. The legs appear sharper than the beak, the tip of which is definitely blurred. --Kreuzschnabel 08:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?

File:Bombardier_Eurotram_n°1003_CTS_Alt_Winmärik_-_Florian_Fèvre.JPG

Bombardier Eurotram n°1003 CTS Alt Winmärik - Florian Fèvre.JPG

  • Nomeação Strasbourg tram line F --Billy69150 11:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão see my note the image is leaning on right--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 22:30, 15 February 2015 (UTC) ✓ Done Thanks ! --Billy69150 17:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
    Is the sky overexposed? Mattbuck 22:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC) No, it's not overexposed --Billy69150 12:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, just too bright for me. Mattbuck 22:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But it is not too bright for me. I like it more than other images which are much to dark. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 00:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 12:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Some reviewers refuse to accept that the Sky is the brightest part of a picture at least during the day and that clouds are white. What should we do? --Moroder 14:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Different planet? --Hubertl 22:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   )

File:2014-07-02 Bonn International School, Bonn-Plittersdorf IMG 2127.jpg

2014-07-02 Bonn International School, Bonn-Plittersdorf IMG 2127.jpg

  • Nomeação Bonn International School, Bonn, Germany (by Hasenläufer)--Leit 11:53, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image looks tilted. It should be possible to correct that? --Martin Kraft 14:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting info.svg Info It's good practice in QIC to give the author the possibility to correct his image before sending it to consensual review. Sending immediately to CR is not covered by QIC rules. --Cccefalon 15:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Indeed it looks a little bit tilted but I think it's really not a big deal on that picture. --TwoWings 20:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 18:08, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Poertschach Gaisrueckenstrasse 69 07022014 9589.jpg

Poertschach Gaisrueckenstrasse 69 07022014 9589.jpg

  • Nomeação Residential building on Gaisrueckenstrasse #69 at Winklern, Poertschach, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 17:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão The perspective should be enhanced: The fence on the right side is leaning in too much. --Cccefalon 00:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
     Not done Mattbuck 22:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC) ✓ Done Sorry it took so much time, but I was busy with other things. Reworked version uploaded. --Johann Jaritz 04:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
    New version uploaded. please review. --Hubertl 12:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice! and good quality --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 17:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • @Johann Jaritz: - could you please perform a crop at the top? There's a lot of empty sky. Mattbuck 22:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for your assessment. Reworked version uploaded. --Johann Jaritz 02:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 17:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

File:London MMB »065 River Thames.jpg

London MMB »065 River Thames.jpg

  • Nomeação River Thames. Mattbuck 21:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. River Thames? The background is blurrisch, only on part is a kind of acceptable sharp. --Hubertl 10:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Other opinions? --Mattbuck 22:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support yes, I see nothing blurred nor unsharp, just a little acceptable noise --Christian Ferrer 20:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   )

File:Jason_Evans_WiR_at_Llyfrgell_Genedlaethol_National_Library_of_Wales_03.JPG

Jason Evans WiR at Llyfrgell Genedlaethol National Library of Wales 03.JPG

  • Nomeação Dr Dafydd Tudur receiving National Library of Wales at Aberystwyth. By User:Llywelyn2000 --Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 17:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The portrait is not perfectly sharp, however I think it can pass to QI after applying perspective correction for the background building. --Cccefalon 09:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support I'm not sure that's necessary or even desirable. I think the perspective forms part of the composition.Mattbuck 22:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Some CA and some color noise in the jacket, perhaps even moirée. I would like to see some more votes, so send to CR instead of decline. -- Smial 14:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?

File:Heuliez_GX_327_n°746_Réseau_Mistral_Mourillon_-_Florian_Fèvre.JPG

Heuliez GX 327 n°746 Réseau Mistral Mourillon - Florian Fèvre.JPG

  • Nomeação Bus in Toulon --Billy69150 12:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Zcebeci 15:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I disagree, its tilted clockwise. Please repair. --Hubertl 18:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC) *
  • ✓ Done --Billy69150 21:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good Quality now.--Hubertl 07:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Some colours seem quite dull to me, and I don't really like the contrast (white-blue sky vs darker sections). --TwoWings 15:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad light : disturbing shadow --Christian Ferrer 20:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support, but Billy69150, this needs a tighter crop at the top. Mattbuck 22:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Christian Ferrer --El Grafo 17:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This shadow does not seem me disturbing and I find the photo very nice. Kvardek du 19:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good quality--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 11:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote? El Grafo 17:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Haltern_am_See,_Hullern,_Kriegerehrenmal_--_2014_--_3251.jpg

Haltern am See, Hullern, Kriegerehrenmal -- 2014 -- 3251.jpg

  • Nomeação War memorial in Hullern, Haltern am See, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 05:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice detail on the war memorial --Daniel Case 07:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but the focus is a bit too close I think (pavement not memorial), and the metal post spoils the composition. --Mattbuck 22:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The pole is there and little can be done about that. Good quality. Jakec 00:32, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
    Reality can prevent images being QI - that's part of composition. Mattbuck 22:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Matt – pavement appearing sharper than the main subject is distracting. Not the best lighting too. --Kreuzschnabel 07:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lacks detail at the main subject. --MB-one 17:56, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 12:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Wooden bridge over Little Fishing Creek.JPG

Wooden bridge over Little Fishing Creek.JPG

  • Nomeação Wooden bridge over Little Fishing Creek.JPG. Jakec 03:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please fix CA in the snow at the top. Mattbuck 23:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão

 Not done --Mattbuck 21:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I removed what I could. Sorry for the delay; I've been busy lately. Jakec 16:10, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for me QI now.--Hubertl 09:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Out of date clock icon 2.svg Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 09:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

File:Railroad_Museum_of_Pennsylvania_Red_Boxcar.JPG

Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania Red Boxcar.JPG

  • Nomeação Red Boxcar --Ram-Man 04:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussão
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree: Magenta CA on the steering wheel, fringing of green/cyan type at the roof ridge. --Cccefalon 08:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain & ✓ Done Major CA. --DXR 16:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC) I fixed it. It's really not that hard. You could basically dump your images into some improvement site before nominating instead of debating the reasonableness of CA correction. --DXR 05:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
    • They don't even pass the minimum guideline of distracting. The magenta fringing blends with the red paint. You have to know exactly what you are looking for. The cyan fringing is visible, but not by much, and it's not glaring. Ram-Man 17:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The CA should be corrected, though if the train has a steering wheel as Cccefalon suggests, I for one am extremely worried! Mattbuck 21:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Haha, yes, it probably is part of a car brake. Railway equipment is not my field of experience. --Cccefalon 23:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done So I applied a basic CA correction in Photoshop. It seems to have minimized the CAs in the top left while increasing them in the right side as well as fuzzing out the fine detail in the picture. Personally, I like the original better because it is sharper. But let's get some feedback so I can get an idea what is expected, although since it looks worse, I may revert and just withdraw the nomination. Ram-Man 02:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
    • I tried the same in GIMP to find the CA is not symmetrical. Did you crop the image before uploading? CA reduction routines expect CA to be symmetric to the center. --Kreuzschnabel 19:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Out of date clock icon 2.svg Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Hubertl 13:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Tabela de tempo (8 dias após a nomeação)

sáb 21 Fev. → dom 01 Mar.
dom 22 Fev. → seg 02 Mar.
seg 23 Fev. → ter 03 Mar.
ter 24 Fev. → qua 04 Mar.
qua 25 Fev. → qui 05 Mar.
qui 26 Fev. → sex 06 Mar.
sex 27 Fev. → sáb 07 Mar.
sáb 28 Fev. → dom 08 Mar.
dom 01 Mar. → seg 09 Mar.