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 76% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted though Commons:Quality images candidates and have to be approved by a translation administrator.

Other languages:
čeština 40% • ‎Deutsch 90% • ‎English 100% • ‎español 76% • ‎français 93% • ‎日本語 33% • ‎македонски 85% • ‎polski 29% • ‎português 76% • ‎русский 18%
Gtk-go-down.svg Ir para as nomeações
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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Para os nomeadores[edit]

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[edit]

  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. As Imagens de qualidade devem ser categorizadas, possuir um título principal e descrição. Isto incluiria o nome taxonômico dos organismos.
  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[edit]

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[edit]

Critérios mais detalhados estão disponíveis em Diretrizes de imagens.

Resolução[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Como nomear[edit]

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 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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Como revisar[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

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 abril 2014 e a categoria Unassessed QI candidates acrescentada à imagem.

Processo de revisão de consenso[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Veja Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules.

Actualização da página: purge this page's cache


Contents

Nominations[edit]

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]] 02h17min, 25 abril 2014 (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.

April 24, 2014[edit]

April 23, 2014[edit]

April 22, 2014[edit]

April 21, 2014[edit]

April 20, 2014[edit]

April 19, 2014[edit]

April 18, 2014[edit]

April 17, 2014[edit]

April 16, 2014[edit]

April 15, 2014[edit]

April 14, 2014[edit]

April 12, 2014[edit]

April 11, 2014[edit]

April 10, 2014[edit]

April 08, 2014[edit]

Consensual review[edit]

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[edit]

File:Ljungdalen_April_2014_02.jpg[edit]

Ljungdalen April 2014 02.jpg

  • Nomeação Mountain landscape with Montane Birch trees close to lake Öjön, Ljungdalen (Berg municipality, Jämtland county). --ArildV 07:34, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --NorbertNagel 10:21, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Charming indeed, but seems to me too much underexposed. The snow is very grey-brown, and looks almost like sand. I ask for a discussion, please.--Jebulon 22:05, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info New version uploaded.--ArildV 10:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Snow can have many different colours, though I would expect somewhat more blue in the shadow areas. But we don't know the lighting really exact. -- Smial 13:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

File:2014-04-16_14-18-04_Chateau-Engelbourg-thann.jpg[edit]

2014-04-16 14-18-04 Chateau-Engelbourg-thann.jpg

  • Nomeação Engelbourg castle, Thann, France. --ComputerHotline 18:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão The bushes on the left side are blurred (motion by wind?)--SteveK 21:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC) Out of curiosity, what is the point of using a ND1000 filter here? --ArildV 08:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC) I can take the wind motion. --ComputerHotline 15:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC) QI imo.--ArildV 23:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeI disagree, because the blurred bushes at the left side are not necessary for this motive --SteveK 17:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I tend to agree with you (although deliberately, I dont think the wind motion adds anything of value to the image). However, it's a small detail in an otherwise god quality photo imo. --ArildV 09:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Backlit_Margarita_Island_Sunset_in_Las_Guevaras,_Venezuela_CaptureNX2.jpg[edit]

Backlit Margarita Island Sunset in Las Guevaras, Venezuela CaptureNX2.jpg

  • Nomeação Backlit Margarita Island --Wilfredor 15:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeI have supported the image in FP but the quality of the lower part is poor, not a QI to me like this and I have my doubts now about my vote in FPC, sorry, Poco a poco 18:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    Si cambias tu voto, te asesinaré. Es broma :) , los votos en contra con buenos argumentos son bienvenidos, Un abrazo --Wilfredor 22:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Promoted as FP 8/0/2 == QI -- KTC 22:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but that's not a valid argument IMHO --Poco a poco 18:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    Of course it is. The criteria for (non-historical photograph) FP is stricter and decided by more people than QI, but each to their own. -- KTC 23:00, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
    Maybe on the paper. Fact is that some pictures are not at QI level but become FP because the wow effect "compensates" the lack of quality. Poco a poco 18:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Foreground was underexposed when the photo was taken. Partial raising of exposure in the lower third of the image resulted in a raising noise level. It looks atmospheric but it lacks photographic quality for me. --Cccefalon 05:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Cccefalon 05:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Byland Abbey MMB 05.jpg[edit]

Byland Abbey MMB 05.jpg

  • Nomeação Byland Abbey. Mattbuck 16:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão
  • Good, maybe slightly tilted, though? --Poco a poco 21:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    It's quite possible it's tilted in reality, probable even. Mattbuck 16:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor lighting -- Sanyambahga 17:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Muffin,_Ciudad_Ho_Chi_Minh,_Vietnam,_2013-08-14,_DD_01.JPG[edit]

Muffin, Ciudad Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam, 2013-08-14, DD 01.JPG

  • Nomeação Muffin, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam --Poco a poco 03:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Maathavan 12:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'd like a discussion about my annotations, please.--Jebulon 15:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • ✓ New version with selective denoising Poco a poco 21:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Slightly better for the noise, but in comparison, (no offense) I prefer "my" DoF of my crown than "yours" of your cake Clin--Jebulon 14:39, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Liebfrauenkirche_Lienzingen-Aussen1.JPG[edit]

Liebfrauenkirche Lienzingen-Aussen1.JPG

  • Nomeação View of the Church of Our Lady in Lienzingen. --SteveK 15:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose way too much noise, and bad light. --A.Savin 11:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment *✓ New versionI have try to fix the problems.--SteveK 09:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)


✓ New version--SteveK (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

File:St Paul's Church Port Townsend.jpg[edit]

St Paul's Church Port Townsend.jpg

  • Nomeação Church in Port Townsend --Adbar 06:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Alberto-g-rovi 09:50,18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral perspective distortion on the left; chromatic aberration on the cross and some edges; probably a bit overexposed highlights. --A.Savin 13:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I tried to correct part of it, is it better? --Adbar 21:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes. But the slight overexposure still doesn't let me support. --A.Savin 19:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --A.Savin 19:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Trompe l oeil Emperor's Courtyard Residenz Munich.jpg[edit]

Trompe l oeil Emperor's Courtyard Residenz Munich.jpg

  • Nomeação Trompe l'oeil painting, Emperor's Courtyard, Residenz, Munich, Bavaria, Germany.--Jebulon 15:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão
Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --JLPC 16:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, but the sharpness is clearly below today's QI standards. --A.Savin 21:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. Jbribeiro1 02:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support quality image -- Sanyambahga 17:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support QI to me. --Cayambe 17:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI. --P e z i 21:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Dalian_Liaoning_China_Public-clock-at-the-customs-office-01.jpg[edit]

Dalian Liaoning China Public-clock-at-the-customs-office-01.jpg

  • Nomeação Public clock at the customs office in Dalian harbour, China. --Cccefalon 06:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality --Halavar 18:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think a more centered composition should be better. But the main issue here is the cornice below, which is distorded, and should be horizontaly straight, IMO.--Jebulon 19:26, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Jute_flower.JPG[edit]

Jute flower.JPG

  • Nomeação jute flower in alaveddi, jaffna , northern province, sri lanka --Aathavan jaffna 14:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Maathavan 15:01, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp. --P e z i 23:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am sorry, I agree with Pezi: most parts of the blossom are out of focus and focus is QI criteria. Maybe you can do another shoot with bigger f-stop (higher depth of field)--J. Lunau 09:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Teotihuacán,_México,_2013-10-13,_DD_05.JPG[edit]

Teotihuacán, México, 2013-10-13, DD 05.JPG

  • Nomeação Teotihuacán, Mexico --Poco a poco 03:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose imo, this one is not sharp enough. Plus distorted and blurred edges. --A.Savin 08:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    I have done some improvements (crop, perspective, curves) and I am not sure whether this one is worse than all others, I hope you don't mind if you discuss it. --Poco a poco 17:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK, this version I'll accept. --A.Savin 11:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --A.Savin 11:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

File:East Midlands Parkway railway station MMB 18.jpg[edit]

East Midlands Parkway railway station MMB 18.jpg

  • Nomeação East Midlands Parkway railway station. Mattbuck 07:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão To dark, white balance not correct, the person is not sharp. --SteveK 07:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
    White balance is correct, and I have brightened it. --Mattbuck 21:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark, unsharp. --Nino Verde 11:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The white balance is still not correct. There's a blue tint over the hole picture (see the snow in the background and the white bird on the right poster). There is a CA at the "Welcome". The image is slightly out of focus, and the person has motion blur. --SteveK 17:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Wayside_shrine_Col_dala_Pelda_fresco_with_Madonna.jpg[edit]

Wayside shrine Col dala Pelda fresco with Madonna.jpg

  • Nomeação Wayside shrine near the manor house Col dala Pelda in Sëlva Gherdëina. --Moroder 17:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Overexposed bottom left. --Mattbuck 22:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree. No way, Mattbuck. Give a look at the histogram of supposed OE area here! --Moroder 09:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me no overexposition. --Archaeodontosaurus 09:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI --Jebulon 23:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Пмз-интерьер-02-никольская-2-этаж-0104.jpg[edit]

Пмз-интерьер-02-никольская-2-этаж-0104.jpg

  • Nomeação Interior of Nature department in Pereslavl museum. --PereslavlFoto 17:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Left side leaning. Too much magenta. Too much reflections in the glas boxes. Not a QI IMO --Cccefalon 09:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
    The reflections are essential for the museum. Maybe someone else comments to find the way with this subject? --PereslavlFoto 21:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Referring to the questions you left on my talk page: I made some annotations where I found indications of too much magenta in the photo. Probably the WB was not properly done. Of course, the reflections in the glas boxes are hard to avoid. But definetly they are disturbing. Sometimes the circumstances are against an assessment as QI and for me, this is such a situation. I do not contest, that this photo is of encyclopedial value, but it is not a QI for me. --Cccefalon 06:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm afraid Cccefalon is right. But I think it is correctible.--Jebulon 14:46, 21 April 2014 (UTC)


File:Rösrath_Germany_St-Nikolaus-von-Tolentino-11.jpg[edit]

Rösrath Germany St-Nikolaus-von-Tolentino-11.jpg

  • Nomeação St. Antonius at the High Altar of St. Nikolaus von Tolentino in Rösrath, germany --Cccefalon 15:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Symbol support vote.svg Support The upper composition is a bit unsharp, but still a good photo --A.Savin 17:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for the moment. The vertical stretching is a bit too much for me. All the statues look distorded with unnatural proportions. Correctible IMO.--Jebulon 19:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why "for the moment"? I can either choose to get verticals rectilinear or upper part unstretched; that's how untilting operation work. So, what death do you want me to die? :-) --Cccefalon 05:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I said "for the moment" because it was correctible... I've tried something as vertical scale correction, I think it is better. Please revert if you don't agree. And for sure, I don't want you to die. For the moment.Smile--Jebulon 13:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    Amazing ... thank you .. want to apply it to the .DNG/.TIF file? there are some losses in the fine details. --Cccefalon 16:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)~
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good now. "for the moment" may be a Gallicism Smile --Archaeodontosaurus 09:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Better said: "for the time being", or "right now". Thank you Archaeo. And I don't want nobody to die. Still. For the time being. Smile I'm at work with the file received--Jebulon 14:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Ta_Keo,_Angkor,_Camboya,_2013-08-16,_DD_01.JPG[edit]

Ta Keo, Angkor, Camboya, 2013-08-16, DD 01.JPG

  • Nomeação Ta Keo, Angkor, Cambodia --Poco a poco 18:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
    Slightly tilted clockwise maybe? The trees are a bit iffy I think. Mattbuck 21:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Tilted Poco a poco 20:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Not that sharp, I'm afraid. And the red tee-shirt is really distracting.--Jebulon 16:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    Please, let's discuss, the T-shirt problem is gone, and sharpness is IMHO good enough for QI --Poco a poco 20:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Harsh contrast and dust spot (see note). Could be nice too geolocation and links to wiki Symbol support vote.svg Support Betters now, well done --Wilfredor 16:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I added the geodata and removed a dust spot (after a note of Christian Ferrer) Poco a poco 18:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support well done post processing, QI for me --J. Lunau 09:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Grosskirmes Ibbenbueren Achterbahn 01.jpg[edit]

Grosskirmes Ibbenbueren Achterbahn 01.jpg

  • Nomeação Roller coaster „Berg und Tal“ at the funfair Großkirmes Ibbenbüren in Ibbenbüren, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --J.-H. Janßen 19:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Wikijunkie 09:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    I like it, but left side is leaning in and it could all do with sharpening.Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Mattbuck 22:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per Matt. Fixable, but 3 three weeks after nomination, a reaction of the nominator could be expected. --Cccefalon 05:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Cccefalon 05:22, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Luebben Paul Gerhardt Gymnasium 10.jpg[edit]

Luebben Paul Gerhardt Gymnasium 10.jpg

  • Nomeação Paul-Gerhardt-Gymnasium in Lübben, Brandenburg, Germany --J.-H. Janßen 16:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussão Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Wikijunkie 09:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment perspective correction needed. --P e z i 22:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not acceptable for me as QI without perspective correction. --Uoaei1 06:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per other --Archaeodontosaurus 15:42, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A sharpening white line is visible along the roofs, but I think it is acceptable after the perspective correction, which has been done.--Jebulon 14:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The perspective is still not properly done. The building is leaning inwards. --Cccefalon 05:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)~
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Cccefalon 05:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC))

Tabela de tempo (8 dias após a nomeação)[edit]

qui 17 Abr. → sex 25 Abr.
sex 18 Abr. → sáb 26 Abr.
sáb 19 Abr. → dom 27 Abr.
dom 20 Abr. → seg 28 Abr.
seg 21 Abr. → ter 29 Abr.
ter 22 Abr. → qua 30 Abr.
qua 23 Abr. → qui 01 maio
qui 24 Abr. → sex 02 maio
sex 25 Abr. → sáb 03 maio