Commons:Candidatas a imágenes de calidad

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.

Saltar a nominaciones
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎svenska
float

Éstas son las candidatas a convertirse en Imagen de Calidad. or favor, que quede claro que no es lo mismo que Imágenes destacadas. Adicionalmente, en caso de que desees información sobre tus imágenes, puedes conseguirla en Críticas fotográficas.

Objetivo

El objetivo de las imágenes de calidad es alentar a la gente que son la base de Commons, los usuarios individuales que proporcionan las imágenes para expandir esta colección. Mientras que las imágenes destacadas identifican a las mejores de todas las imágenes subidas a Commons, las Imágenes de Calidad sirven para identificar y alentar los esfuerzos de los usuarios para subir imágenes de calidad a Commons.
Además, las imágenes de calidad podrían ser un lugar donde otros usuarios expliquen métodos para mejorar una imagen.

Directrices

Todas las imágenes nominadas deben ser el resultado del trabajo de los usuarios de Commons.

Para los nominadores

A continuación se incluyen las directrices generales para Imágenes de Calidad, y un criterio más detallado está disponible en Directrices de imágenes.

Requisitos de las imágenes
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  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. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the Image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.


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

Criterios más detallados están disponibles en Directrices de imágenes.

Resolución

Las imágenes de Commons no sólo se pueden usar para verlas en la pantalla. También pueden usarse para la impresión y o para su visualización en monitores de alta resolución. No podemos predecir qué dispositivos se usarán en el futuro, por lo que es importante que las imágenes que sean nominadas tengan una resolución razonablemente alta. Normalmente el límite inferior son 2 megapíxeles, pero para imágenes 'fáciles de tomar', los revisores pueden exigir mucho más.

(No aplicable a las imágenes SVG)

Calidad de las Imágenes

Las imágenes digitales pueden sufrir diversos problemas originados en la captura y procesamiento de la imagen como ruido, problemas con la compresión JPEG, falta de información, zonas de sombra o de relieve, o problemas con la captura de colores. Todos estos temas deben ser manejados correctamente.

Composición e iluminación

El arreglo del sujeto principal de una imagen debe contribuir a la propia imagen. Los objetos de fondo no deben distraer. La iluminación y el foco también han de contribuir al resultado global; el sujeto ha de destacar, ser completo y estar bien expuesto.

Valor

Nuestro objetivo principal es favorecer la calidad de las imágenes que contribuyen a Wikicommons, algo valioso para los proyectos de Wikimedia.

Cómo nominar

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

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

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Nota: Hay un artilugio que acelera las nominaciones. 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

Carefully select your best images to nominate. Adding more than a couple of images at once can be considered flooding, which is at least frowned upon or may even lead to immediate decline.

Evaluación de las imágenes

Cualquier usuario registrado puede revisar una nominación.
Cuando un revisor evalúa una imagen debe considerar las mismas directrices que el nominador.

Cómo revisar

How to update the status

Examina cuidadosamente la imagen. Ábrela en la máxima resolución, y mira si se cumplen los criterios de calidad.

  • Si decides promover la nominación, cambia la línea relevante de
Image:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination| muy breve descripción --~~~~ |}}

to

Image:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion| muy breve descripción --Firma del nominador | Por qué te gusta. --~~~~}}

En otras palabras, cambia la plantilla de /Nomination a /Promotion y añade tu firma, a ser posible con algún pequeño comentario.

  • Si decides declinar la nominación, cambia la línea relevante de
Image:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination| muy breve descripción --~~~~ |}}

to

Image:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline| muy breve descripción --Firma del nominador | Por qué no te gusta. --~~~~}}

En otras palabras, cambia la plantilla de /Nomination a /Decline y añade tu firma, a ser posible declarando los criterios por los que la imagen falló (puedes usar títulos de la sección de las directrices). Si hay muchos problemas, por favor notifica sólo los 2 o 3 más severos, y añade multiple problems. Cuando declines una nominación, por favor explica las razones en la página de discusión del nominador - como regla general, debes ser agradable y alentador! En el mensaje deberías dar una explicación más detallada de tu decisión.

Nota: Por favor, evalúa primero las imágenes más antiguas.

Período de gracia y promoción

Si no hay objeciones en un período de 2 días (exactamente: 48 horas) desde su revisión, la imagen se promueve o no, de acuerdo con la revisión que recibió. Si tienes objeciones, mueve la imagen al estado Consensual review.

Cómo ejecutar una decisión

QICbot actúa automáticamente estos 2 días después de que la decisión se ha tomado, y las imágenes promovidas son guardadas en Promovidas recientemente a la espera de la inserción manual en una apropiada página de Imágenes de Calidad.

Si crees que has encontrado una imagen excepcional que merece el estatus de Imagen destacada, entonces nomínala también en Commons:Featured picture candidates

  • Las imágenes que esperan una revisión, se muestran en un recuadro azul.
  • Las imágenes que el revisor ha aceptado se muestran en un recuadro verde.
  • Las imágenes que el revisor ha aceptado se muestran en un recuadro rojo.

Imágenes no asignadas (recuadro azul)

Las imágenes nominadas que no han sido promovidas ni declinadas, o acabaron en consenso (hubo igual número de oposiciones y apoyos) tras 8 días en esta página deberían ser borradas de esta página sin promoción, archivadas en Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives diciembre 2014 y añadirle a la imagen la Category:Unassessed QI candidates.

Proceso de revisión de consenso

La revisión de consenso es un lugar utilizado en el caso en que el procedimiento descrito anteriormente sea insuficiente y necesite discusión para que surjan más opiniones.

Cómo preguntar por la revisión de consenso

Si esto parece demasiado complicado, sólo cambia /Promotion, /Decline a /Discuss y añade tus comentarios inmediatamente tras la revisión. Alguien la moverá a la sección de revisión de consenso. O sólo intentalo, acertarás si sigues cuidadosamente lo que todo el mundo hace.

Por favor, sólo envía cosas a la revisión de consenso que hayan sido revisadas como promovidas / declinadas. Si, como revisor, no puedes tomar una decisión, añade tus comentarios, pero deja el candidato en esta página.

Revisión de las reglas de consenso

Ver Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Actualización de la 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]] 18:45, 22 diciembre 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.
The new rule is effective now. Please nominate only a maximum of 5 images per day. [1]

December 22, 2014

December 21, 2014

December 20, 2014

December 19, 2014

December 18, 2014

December 17, 2014

December 16, 2014

December 15, 2014

December 14, 2014

December 13, 2014

December 12, 2014

December 11, 2014

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:Anas December 2014-2.jpg

Anas December 2014-2.jpg

  • Nomination Female Mallard Duck. Gulbenkian Garden, Lisboa -- Alvesgaspar 22:40, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Jkadavoor 06:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • There is an existing category for this place, please use it before a promotion --Christian Ferrer 16:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but a duck is a duck is a duck. This is not a depiction of the Gulbenkian Garden -- Alvesgaspar 17:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes it is and if you think not thus follow your logic and do not write it in your descriptions (file and nomination!), you know the place so you categorize. --Christian Ferrer 17:30, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until it’s fixed.
  • To put photos of plants or animals in the category of the garden where you took these photos is very relevant and essential if you know it. A garden or a park contains plants, a category for this garden contains images of these plants. Logic, isn’t it? I have even been kind enough to you to find this category. It's one of the rules here for all of us, when a file has the adequate information so it must be correctly categorized accordingly. (final comments from me for this nomination, maybe see you later on your next nominations…) --Christian Ferrer 20:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I added a category and used this image at Gulbenkian_Park#Features. A duck is a duck is a duck; but we need a duck from that garden to use there. Jkadavoor 04:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral ok for me --Christian Ferrer 05:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Cortaderia December 2014-2.jpg

Cortaderia December 2014-2.jpg

  • Nomination Pampas Grass (Cortaderia selloana). Gulbenkian Garden, Lisboa. -- Alvesgaspar 19:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 19:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • There is an existing category for this place, please use it before a promotion --Christian Ferrer 16:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until it’s fixed.
  • To put photos of plants or animals in the category of the garden where you took these photos is very relevant and essential if you know it. A garden or a park contains plants, a category for this garden contains images of these plants. Logic, isn’t it? I have even been kind enough to you to find this category. It's one of the rules here for all of us, when a file has the adequate information so it must be correctly categorized accordingly. (final comments from me for this nomination, maybe see you later on your next nominations…) --Christian Ferrer 20:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I respectfully disagree and have inserted what I consider to be a better category. The same solution was adopted for pictures in botanical gardens, like in here. You comment that we might see you in my next nominations sounds like a threat and is not elegant. Alvesgaspar 10:12, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The creation of this category is a very good thing, I congratulate you for this initiative and congratulate even myself for my perceverance that bears its fruits. So I promise I'll follow with great attention all your future nominations for that continues this successful teamwork. Hope it's more elegant, and hope you will continue your effort your efforts on categorization of your images, see you soon Alvesgaspar --Christian Ferrer 12:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Two straws are overexposed. Can you fix it? --Steindy 10:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, they are overexposed but little can be done about it except making the white grey. But the trick won't bring the details back. Alvesgaspar 11:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Cotoneaster December 2014-1.jpg

Cotoneaster December 2014-1.jpg

  • Nomination Fruits and leaves of Cotoneaster lacteus -- Alvesgaspar 19:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 00:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • There is an existing category for this place, please use it before a promotion --Christian Ferrer 16:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until it’s fixed.
  • To put photos of plants or animals in the category of the garden where you took these photos is very relevant and essential if you know it. A garden or a park contains plants, a category for this garden contains images of these plants. Logic, isn’t it? I have even been kind enough to you to find this category. It's one of the rules here for all of us, when a file has the adequate information so it must be correctly categorized accordingly. (final comments from me for this nomination, maybe see you later on your next nominations…) --Christian Ferrer 20:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I respectfully disagree and have inserted what I consider to be a better category. The same solution was adopted for pictures in botanical gardens, like in here. You comment that we might see you in my next nominations sounds like a threat and is not elegant. Alvesgaspar 10:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The creation of this category is a very good thing, I congratulate you for this initiative and congratulate even myself for my perceverance that bears its fruits. So I promise I'll follow with great attention all your future nominations for that continues this successful teamwork. Hope it's more elegant, and hope you will continue your effort your efforts on categorization of your images, see you soon Alvesgaspar --Christian Ferrer 12:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Christmas, this is the beginning of a long lasting friendship :-P --Hubertl 17:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Bamboo December 2014-1.jpg

Bamboo December 2014-1.jpg

  • Nomination Fishpole Bamboo. Gulbenkian Garden, Lisboa -- Alvesgaspar 19:00, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • There is an existing category for this place, please use it before a promotion --Christian Ferrer 16:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC) -- I'm sending it to CR.
  • Not a good practise to use QIC to make a point! -- Alvesgaspar 18:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe but you nominated, I cite the nomination sentence : Fishpole Bamboo. Gulbenkian Garden, Lisboa. You took photos in this garden, I don't see why you'll be exempt from precisely categorize your photos. Why this category exist, if it's not for to put the images taken in it? And you're the first here that refers to something other than the nomination of this picture. --Christian Ferrer 18:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose until it’s fixed.
  • To put photos of plants or animals in the category of the garden where you took these photos is very relevant and essential if you know it. A garden or a park contains plants, a category for this garden contains images of these plants. Logic, isn’t it? I have even been kind enough to you to find this category. It's one of the rules here for all of us, when a file has the adequate information so it must be correctly categorized accordingly. (final comments from me for this nomination, maybe see you later on your next nominations…) --Christian Ferrer 20:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I respectfully disagree and have inserted what I consider to be a better category. The same solution was adopted for pictures in botanical gardens, like in here. You comment that we might see you in my next nominations sounds like a threat and is not elegant. Alvesgaspar 10:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The creation of this category is a very good thing, I congratulate you for this initiative and congratulate even myself for my perceverance that bears its fruits. So I promise I'll follow with great attention all your future nominations for that continues this successful teamwork. Hope it's more elegant, and hope you will continue your effort your efforts on categorization of your images, see you soon Alvesgaspar --Christian Ferrer 12:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

File:140928_Berlin_Nordbahnhof_Eingang.jpg

140928 Berlin Nordbahnhof Eingang.jpg

  • Nomination Entrance of Berlin Nordbahnhof. --Code 11:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSorry,but noise and overprocessed --Livioandronico2013 14:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think the noise level is acceptable. I don't know what you mean with overprocessing here. Other opinions, please. --Code 16:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Viru_värav_-_lõuna-torn.jpg

Viru värav - lõuna-torn.jpg

  • Nomination South tower of the Viru Gate, Tallinn. --Óðinn 04:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeOverexposed sky. --Iifar 18:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The lighting is poor and the crop too tight on the subject -- Alvesgaspar 12:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Lille quai du Wault (1).jpg

Lille quai du Wault (1).jpg

  • Nomination Le quai du Wault, Lille.- Nord (département français)----PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 23:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 00:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Partly overexposed sky, noise, lack of fine detail, sorry, but this not a QI for me. --Iifar 18:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above. With this type od camera, miracles are rare! Alvesgaspar 12:42, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you for your observtions. Maybe my next pictures taken with my recent Sony α NEX-F3. will have more success. Best Regards-- Pierre André (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Lille place du lion d' Or.jpg

Lille place du lion d' Or.jpg

  • Nomination La Place du lion d'Or, Lille.- Nord (département français)--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 23:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 00:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed sky. --Iifar 18:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very poor quality: crop, detail, overexposure. Alvesgaspar 12:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you for your observtions. Maybe my next pictures taken with my recent Sony α NEX-F3. will have more success. Best Regards--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Lille 60 rue du Curé de St Etienne (PA00107714).JPG

Lille 60 rue du Curé de St Etienne (PA00107714).JPG

  • Nomination Maison sise 60 rue du Curé de St. Etienne, à Lille.-Nord (département français)--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 23:25, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment please repair the tilted areas, left and right --Hubertl 00:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for review. New version uploaded;--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 11:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Its just a weak PRO, for the composition, not so much for the quality itself. Maybe someone will discuss it. Second opinion appreciated. --Hubertl 16:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed sky, CA, perspective distortion, noise...sorry, but this not a QI for me. --Iifar 18:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As above. we can't expect to produce a QI with this type of camera, sorry. Alvesgaspar 12:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you for your observtions. Maybe my next pictures taken with my recent Sony α NEX-F3. will have more success. Best Regards.- -- Pierre André (talk) 20:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Strong oppose per others. Just look at it in full view. Overexposed, unsharp and heavily overprocessed (noise reduction), no detail at all. Far below QI threshold as of today. --Kreuzschnabel 07:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-21_MF_red_687_Deutsches_Museum_Flugwerft_Schleissheim_2014_01.jpg

Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 MF red 687 Deutsches Museum Flugwerft Schleissheim 2014 01.jpg

  • Nomination Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-21 MF Fishbed (red 687, 1973). --Julian Herzog 20:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Its explicitly forbidden to take pictures in this museum for publishing it under a free licence. Only for private purposes. --Hubertl 21:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC) --Hubertl 20:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Really? :/ Thanks for the info. Julian Herzog 05:50, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support That's not a valid reason to decline here. --Yann 15:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It should because this is an offense in germany. --Code 08:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
@Yann:, "check license" etc. is a guideline here for nominations and reviews. A pending no-nonsense DR by the uploader is slightly disturbing. –Be..anyone 02:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
@Be..anyone: - Please don´t give any vote in my name. Never! Bist grad ein bisserl übermotiviert? --Hubertl 03:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Possibly, but the rules some lines above say that converting "br" requires conversion into "o" or "s" to reflect the original reason of the "discuss". Maybe I misunderstood that, thanks for fixing it. Some abuse filter already whined when I tried to remove the older of your two timestamps. –Be..anyone 03:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

File:14-08-13-Helsinki-Kanu-RalfR-N3S_1133-094.jpg

14-08-13-Helsinki-Kanu-RalfR-N3S 1133-094.jpg

  • Nomination Helsinki, Kalliosaari --Ralf Roletschek 09:21, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Not a valid categorization. Obviously not willing to contribute to Commons categorization standards. --Cccefalon 11:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)✓ Done --Ralf Roletschek 19:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    OK now. --Yann 08:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Steindy 10:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Normalsegelapparat_Otto_Lilienthal_Deutsches_Museum_Flugwerft_Schleissheim_2014.jpg

Normalsegelapparat Otto Lilienthal Deutsches Museum Flugwerft Schleissheim 2014.jpg

  • Nomination Normalsegelapparat by Otto Lilienthal at Deutsches Museum Flugwerft Schleissheim. --Julian Herzog 20:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Yann 20:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, because its not permited to take pictures in this museum for publishing it under a free licence. --Hubertl 21:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not a valid reason to decline here. Yann 15:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hausrecht ist Risiko des Fotografen, urheberrechtlich unbedenklich. --Ralf Roletschek 10:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

File:DLR_VFW-Fokker_614_ATTAS_project_Deutsches_Museum_Flugwerft_Schleissheim_2014_01_cockpit.jpg

DLR VFW-Fokker 614 ATTAS project Deutsches Museum Flugwerft Schleissheim 2014 01 cockpit.jpg

  • Nomination DLR VFW-Fokker 614 (reg. D-ADAM) ATTAS cockpit. --Julian Herzog 20:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good image -- MJJR 20:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, because its not permited to take pictures in this museum for publishing it under a free licence. --Hubertl 21:16, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support There is nothing here which can get a copyright. Yann 10:33, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's a matter of property, not copyright. If the owner forbids taking such photos it is an offense to take or publish them. --Code 09:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Köln,_Hohenzollernbrücke_und_Dom_--_2014_--_1866.jpg

Köln, Hohenzollernbrücke und Dom -- 2014 -- 1866.jpg

  • Nomination Hohenzollernbrücke, Cologne, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 05:35, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion This image does not depict the subject well because the near end of the bridge is not visible. It isn't apparent how much of the bridge is depicted in the photograph. The left third of the image does not seem to contribute to the illustration of the bridge. Focus and exposure are good. The shadows are somewhat harsh, especially on the piers supporting the bridge, but would not prevent promotion, in my opinion. --Wsiegmund 18:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Personally, I see no problem with this. The technical quality is very good. Furthermore, it could be impossible to depict the underside of the bridge if one were standing at one end of the bridge. Jakec 20:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Too many free space on the left and on the bottom. The photo need a crop, I think. --Brateevsky 19:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Agree with Brateevsky. I've suggested a crop, please see note. The foreground is useless, and... ugly (IMO)--Jebulon 11:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Fixed I've choosen another crop. Hopefully it's better now.--XRay 12:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Graffiti in Tartu 02.JPG

Graffiti in Tartu 02.JPG

  • Nomination Graffiti in Tartu. Kruusamägi 20:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI Poco a poco 22:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'd apreciate a wise advice about the copyright, please.--Jebulon 20:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 09:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 10:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I'd apreciate a wise advice about the copyright, please.--Jebulon 10:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I think that the way to do it is starting a DR. I didn't think of that when promote, to be honest. Poco a poco 18:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Mielec,_ul._Rochowska,_kaplica_Boguszów,_02.JPG

2014 Mielec, ul. Rochowska, kaplica Boguszów, 02.JPG

  • Nomination Boguszów Chapel in Mielec 1 --Jacek Halicki 10:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Bgag 15:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose should be discussed IMO. The facade is in shadow, and the crop is too tight, especially above.--Jebulon 20:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I have no doubt that this is QI. Very good quality. --Code 09:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Code --Kreuzschnabel 21:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment good however two things to clone out in the sky (see notes) --Christian Ferrer 07:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done--Jacek Halicki 20:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Tragopogon_pratensis_Mitterbach_01.JPG

Tragopogon pratensis Mitterbach 01.JPG

  • Nomination Meadow Salsify (Tragopogon pratensis), found near Mitterbach am Erlaufsee, Lower Austria --Uoaei1 07:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not sharp in large view; yellow seems overexposed. Jkadavoor 07:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting question.svg Question DOF is small as in all macro shots, but to me sharpness is on the level that is usually accepted here. Do you see any area where yellow is burned out? --Uoaei1 13:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    DOF is not the issue here; nowhere I see satisfying details. I noticed ISO 800 which may be reason. Feel free to change to "discuss" for other opinions. Jkadavoor 05:57, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    In the original file, about 1.5 million pixels, mostly in the lower petals, are saturated in the red channel (value equal to 255). That is more than 7% and is high for a successful QIC. File:Eristalis tenax auf Tragopogon pratensis 01.JPG, another current QIC by the same photographer, has a similar number of saturated pixels. I think f/11 to f/16 is a good range for macro images. Diffraction reduces resolution substantially for slower f-ratios. ISO800 should not degrade quality significantly for a D7100. The flower heads are 5 cm wide according to en:Tragopogon pratensis so the subject is not highly magnified.--Wsiegmund 01:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info How have you evaluated this? In the new version with reduced brightness which I uploaded yesterday, there is no saturation at all - at least according to the information shown in Lightroom. --Uoaei1 08:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I used Photoshop Elements 11. The numbers I quote are for the first version (original?). To evaluate whether information has been irretrievably lost, it is easiest to look at the original version. In both versions, if I use the levels tool to set the output levels of the green and blue channels to zero, then stretch the upper end of the red channel, I see no detail in most of several lower petals and in portions of other parts of the flower. Yellow and red flowers have such intense colors that it is difficult to avoid clipping in the red channel. --Wsiegmund 17:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I find it is an excellent picture and therefore QI. --Steindy 12:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI. No doubt to me.--Hubertl 17:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good for me. --Hockei 18:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Girl_of_Isla_Margarita.jpg

Girl of Isla Margarita.jpg

  • Nomination Girl of Isla Margarita --Wilfredor 12:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support I like the image. The crop is small and there is a little bit noise (in the background) but OK for QI. --XRay 17:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    I think it may be a bit noisy, and the composition is iffy - it looks a bit too severed head for my taste. Symbol oppose vote.svg Weak oppose. --Mattbuck 23:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong choice of focal length which distorts the face. Jkadavoor 16:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jkadavoor. Distance too short, distorting the face (giant nose vs. tiny ears). --Kreuzschnabel 21:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Nowy_Aton,_Historyczny_szlak_w_kanionie_rzeki_Psyrccha_(14).jpg

2014 Nowy Aton, Historyczny szlak w kanionie rzeki Psyrccha (14).jpg

  • Nomination History trail in the Psyrtskha river gorge. New Athos, Gudauta District, Abkhazia. --Halavar 13:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed and blurred --Christian Ferrer 16:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, but I do not agree. We need more opinions. --Halavar 17:43, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    GA candidate.svg Weak support There are a few overexposed spots, but I know from experience how difficult it is to take a picture of a creek on a sunny day without getting burned areas. Personally, I find the blur attractive. Jakec 01:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Of course when I talk about blur, I talk about the vegetation and about the river banks, not about the motion blur of the water that is nice. --Christian Ferrer 06:04, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Christian Ferrer. Ram-Man 13:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    Is that fixable? I gave up after one (failed) attempt, and stick to BG-1 on my user page. –Be..anyone 03:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

File:14-08-13-helsinki-RalfR-N3S_1312-071.jpg

14-08-13-helsinki-RalfR-N3S 1312-071.jpg

  • Nomination Helsinki, Tallink ferry --Ralf Roletschek 06:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --JLPC 15:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree as long as there is not a correct categorization. "Helsinki/unsortiert" is not complying with commons category system. --Cccefalon 05:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    Fixed categories --Msaynevirta 17:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thank you, my objections are void now. --Cccefalon 10:32, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Paide kohtuhoone 2014.JPG

Paide kohtuhoone 2014.JPG

  • Nomination Paide courthouse. Kruusamägi 01:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion I don't like the fringing in the trees, but it's away from the main subject and not distracting. So good enough for QI. --Ram-Man 03:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Notable magenta fringing on the branches in the foreground left side as well as the magenta on the right side. This issue is easy to fix and there is no reason to lower the standards for a quality image. --Cccefalon 08:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong time of the day, the facade should not be in shadow.--Jebulon 21:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I worked on a image a bit. Better? Kruusamägi 20:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, better regarding the light, but less shadow means much more noise, sorry.--Jebulon 10:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Ранкова палітра.jpg

Ранкова палітра.jpg

  • Nomination 8th price on Wiki Loves Earth 2014 (by Башкатов Віталій) –Be..anyone 04:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very pretty, but very overprocessed. Mattbuck 08:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for me, regardless of processing. Is it quality? It is sharp, properly exposed (no overly dark or light areas, no clipping), no noise of note, no CAs of note, no obvious stitching errors, looks good at 100%, has great composition. It's got high value; I can see this being used by a lot of people. Is it saturated? Yes. For me this is the only potential defect. And I'd only oppose if the level of saturation bothered my overall impression (it obviously does for others) or I thought it would make it have low value. -- Ram-Man 21:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I really don´t like these coloured, overprocessed things. --Hubertl 20:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose it's time for juries to follow the guidelines. Overprocessed.--Jebulon 21:08, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg weak support Yes, it looks overprocessed (that is over-denoised) at full view, partly like a waterpainting. But then, we are looking at a 34 mpix image. All in all it’s not that overprocessed, and thank God it’s not oversharpened. --Kreuzschnabel 08:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment the only issues I see are a little lack of contrast and an oversaturation, both fixable IMO --Christian Ferrer 18:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oversaturated. Not an example of photographic quality for sure. Alvesgaspar 12:51, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Jacobaea maritima20140629 52.jpg

Jacobaea maritima20140629 52.jpg

  • Nomination Inflorescences of Jacobaea maritima. --Bff 14:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please remove the magenta shine (downsized CA) from the background leaves. --Cccefalon 16:30, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough for a QI as is. Ram-Man 13:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Jkadavoor 06:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. Very nice photo but it should be possible to reduce the CA before support. -- Spurzem 22:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steindy 12:08, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Laukkasarenkatu.jpg

Laukkasarenkatu.jpg

  • Nomination Laukkasarenkatu, Helsinki. --Óðinn 16:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO too much shadow at the bottom. Another crop would be fine.--XRay 17:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Another crop would be fine, but it's fine uncropped. Cropping lowers value slightly. Ram-Man 13:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support --Msaynevirta 17:09, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose with XRay.--Jebulon 21:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support not so disturbing here --Christian Ferrer 03:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Bastioni_Wrede.jpg

Bastioni Wrede.jpg

  • Nomination Bastion Wrede, Suomenlinna, Finland. --Óðinn 01:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 05:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Backlighting leads to overexposure (color shifts) in the sky. Ram-Man 14:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed on the left side. --Steindy 11:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I follow Steindy.--Jebulon 10:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - uploaded new version, please have another look. --Óðinn 18:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

File:14-08-13-helsinki-RalfR-10.jpg

14-08-13-helsinki-RalfR-10.jpg

  • Nomination Helsinki, market hall --Ralf Roletschek 06:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. Would you PLEASE ;-) so kind and categorize it? --Hubertl 22:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Please add a correct categorization. "Helsinki/unsortiert" is not complying with commons category system. --Cccefalon 20:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support --Msaynevirta 17:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective at left to be corrected.--Jebulon 21:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Needs small perspective corrections. --Steindy 12:02, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Cráter_Stóri_Grábrók,_Vesturland,_Islandia,_2014-08-15,_DD_089.JPG

Cráter Stóri Grábrók, Vesturland, Islandia, 2014-08-15, DD 089.JPG

  • Nomination Stóri Grábrók crater, Vesturland, Iceland --Poco a poco 12:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Lens/perspective distortions. Especially the right side is leaning to the right. --Halavar 12:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Poco a poco 16:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
    Better, but still distorsion exist. Right side of the horizon should be raised to the top. --Halavar 00:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ New version going further with the perspective correction Poco a poco 13:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, but I think others should decide. --Halavar 20:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
    You lost me, why that? do you still see any issues? Poco a poco 10:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
    There is still the same issue - right side looks unnatural according to use of fish eye lens. There is too much lens/perspective distortions. But that is only my personal opinion. Maybe the image is good. I think CR should be started. --Halavar 12:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is acceptable for me. The areas of primary importance are fine and the other defects are relatively minor. Ram-Man 17:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Detalle_en_Ventana_del_Teatro_Municipal_de_São_Paulo.jpg

Detalle en Ventana del Teatro Municipal de São Paulo.jpg

  • Nomination Detalle en Ventana del Teatro Municipal de São Paulo --Wilfredor 11:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Overall good quality but please get the window bars rectilinear. --Cccefalon 11:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)::I cant see any problem. Please See notes --Wilfredor 11:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting info.svg Info I helped you with an annotation to see the problem. --Cccefalon 17:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
    I am sorry, i cant underestand how your notes could be a mistake --Wilfredor 18:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
    Wilfredor, I cannot believe that you deny that the yellow bar is inclined to the right side?! --Cccefalon 19:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
    IMHO The joints of windows is indicating whether or not inclined, not the design. --Wilfredor 10:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
    Since we do not know the window bars, we can not assess the linearity as well (I seem not to be all straight). For me it is an excellent photo and therefore QI. --Steindy 18:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sure, we do know the layout of the venetian windows. You can for example watch this image. Clearly inclinced. --Cccefalon 14:32, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As above, good quality. --Steindy 11:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Most of the tilt comes from the drawing itself. Good enough. Alvesgaspar 12:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Bilder_im_Hofgarten,_München,_Deutschland4.jpg

Bilder im Hofgarten, München, Deutschland4.jpg

  • Nomination Paintings on bavarian history in Hofgarten, Munich, Germany --Poco a poco 09:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. It looks like two images in one. Contrast is missing and IMO it is not sharp enough (for example top left). --XRay 17:37, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    Not really convinced about this one: ✓ new version Poco a poco 09:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Please, let's discuss --Poco a poco 18:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I uploaded a new version with much higher contrast. This would satisfy me. Ram-Man 13:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    Hi Derek, I've just uploaded a new version following yours as guide. I think it is better working always out of the RAW, I hope you don't mind. Thank you for your help! Poco a poco 20:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, the painting was and still is better than other versions in this category, and folks can crop the ugly pillars if they want only the painting. –Be..anyone 20:10, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This could use an unsharp mask (10%, radius 35 pixels) for localized contrast enhancements beyond simple curves, but it's good enough for me now as is. Ram-Man 12:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:TempleTank.jpg

TempleTank.jpg

  • Nomination A water tank in a temple in Hyderabad, India -- Nikhil 03:00, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Please remove the magenta CA (see note). --Cccefalon 06:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC) @Cccefalon Sorry for the late reply. I don't know how to correct the CAs. If you find time, can you please go ahead and do it. Thanks in advance. --Nikhil 03:20, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't see any CA, but it does look a bit posterised. Mattbuck 21:57, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support This is fine for me. Ram-Man 16:23, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Is the "aberration" a building in the background mostly hidden by the tree? –Be..anyone 04:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Be..anyone, you are right. The light seemingly hidden in the trees (annotated part) is part of a temple in the background. Mattbuck, I only sharpened the image slightly and no manipulation was done. Thanks and cheers! Nikhil 07:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steindy 11:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Shearer's_Covered_Bridge_Window_3008px.jpg

Shearer's Covered Bridge Window 3008px.jpg

  • Nomination Covered Bridge Window --Ram-Man 13:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed background. --Steindy 20:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Covered bridges are naturally lit and it's like taking a picture in a room of a house with only the light from windows. Some overexposure is expected (See a, b, c [QI], d, e). Another opinion please. Ram-Man 15:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The above examples are just bad examples of good photos and are at most as examples what to look for in order to avoid such kind of mistake. --Steindy 10:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Subject clearly clean and sharp, background indifferent.--Livioandronico2013 15:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Background essential. Per Steindy.--Jebulon 21:02, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Good technical quality but I don't understand the composition to be honest. --Code 09:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A good composition and good enough quality. Yes, it could be better with more favourable light conditions. Alvesgaspar 12:55, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Зимовий Кукуль.JPG

Зимовий Кукуль.JPG

  • Nomination 11th place in Wiki Loves Earth 2014 (by Хіраш Володимир) –Be..anyone 02:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Very good. --Óðinn 03:43, 16 December 2014 (UTC) It does indeed need perspective correction --Óðinn 15:31, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    Inappropriate QIC description. WB not done / too much magenta in the trees, perspective not done. --Cccefalon 06:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. I think that it is true light making the color of the trees. -- Spurzem 23:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. Ram-Man 12:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Msaynevirta 22:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Angel_on_Castel_Sant'Angelo.jpg

Angel on Castel Sant'Angelo.jpg

  • Nomination Angel on Castel Sant'Angelo --Livioandronico2013 22:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed angel, not sharp and lost details. --Steindy 14:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Other please --Livioandronico2013 15:03, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This looks sharp and good at very large magnifications. The angel looks slightly unsharp at 100%, but that's irrelevant. -- Ram-Man 13:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hm. But isn't the angel the main object (see filename) and therefore should be sharp? --Code 20:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • (1) The angel is acceptably sharp at 2ft (0.6m) wide at a viewing distance of 18in (0.45 m) @ 100dpi. That's a very large magnification to look good at, way higher than the 2MP minimum. Any larger magnifications are irrelevant as they depend on very specific usage scenarios. Depth of field (which is just a perceptual measure) varies with magnification (that is, crop and view size), so it makes sense that it does not look that good at 100%. (2) The angel is the main subject, but not the only one. This is not a closeup detail view and should not be evaluated as such. Ram-Man 21:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment «The angel looks slightly unsharp at 100%, but that's irrelevant.» I am very surprised by this comment. I think photos should be assessed, not in sympathy and antipathies, but for facts... --Steindy 10:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentAnd just you speak Steindy? Ridiculous. Instead of judging ,upload your pictures, possibly not as bad your usual and after we can see. It is easy to judge the work of others without knowing it do.At least Ram-Man is a photographer and has 40 Featured !!!. You? Ridiculous,real ridiculous. Clin.--Livioandronico2013 14:48, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose poor quality, maybe a bad crop. –Be..anyone 02:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Same as Be..anyone.--Jebulon 10:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

File:14-08-13-Helsinki-Kanu-RalfR-N3S_1133-094.jpg

14-08-13-Helsinki-Kanu-RalfR-N3S 1133-094.jpg

  • Nomination Helsinki, Ausflug mit Kanu zur Insel Kalliosaari --Ralf Roletschek 15:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg SupportHyvä laatu! Vaikka minulla ei ole hajuakaan melonnan Suomessa, suomeksi, mutta minusta loistava. Ole hyvä seuraavan kerran Suomen kuvaus! --Hubertl 17:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeI disagree: Inapproprate categorization. Backlighing not well handled / unbalanced exposure. --Cccefalon 06:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Cccefalon.--Jebulon 20:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good. Gorgeous backlight with beautiful reflections, which is emphasized by the diagonal of the rocks in the foreground. --Steindy (talk) 10:38, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:14-08-13-Helsinki-Kanu-RalfR-N3S_1146-102.jpg

14-08-13-Helsinki-Kanu-RalfR-N3S 1146-102.jpg

  • Nomination Helsinki, Ausflug mit Kanu zur Insel Kalliosaari --Ralf Roletschek 15:58, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Hyvä laatu! Vaikka minulla ei ole hajuakaan melonnan Suomessa, suomeksi, mutta minusta loistava. Ole hyvä seuraavan kerran Suomen kuvaus! --Hubertl 17:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree: Inapproprate categorization. Backlighing not well handled / unbalanced exposure. --Cccefalon 06:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The overly dark foreground dominates the scene. It might be acceptable in other compositions, but not here. Ram-Man 13:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Interesting effect, looking out of a dark tunnel into the light. The category should be updated. –Be..anyone 03:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilted. Bad categorization.--Jebulon 20:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steindy 10:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Jebulon 20:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

File:London MMB »1E3 Lightning.jpg

London MMB »1E3 Lightning.jpg

  • Nomination Lightning over London. Mattbuck 14:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 21:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
    Disturbing lens flare, disturbing roof and disturbing spots (see notes). --Steindy 17:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Steindy 10:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Steindy. + magenta CA along the lightning itself.--Jebulon 10:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Interior_of_Municipal_Teatro_of_São_Paulo.jpg

Interior of Municipal Teatro of São Paulo.jpg

  • Nomination Interior of Municipal Teatro of São Paulo --Wilfredor 11:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Green and purple CAs at the windows to the left. --C messier 16:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC), thanks, could you add notes please? --Wilfredor 11:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose  Not done --C messier 18:08, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    I can not detect any CAs also at 150% magnification. Let us discuss. --Steindy 18:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, as critcised there are some small visible artifacts in the stained glass windows, but in 100% view they are not really disturbing. QI for me. Difficult lighting situation very well handled, colors look naturally. -- Smial 11:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The image is very good but as C messier already mentioned, there is a disturbing magenta CA at the left door opening rod. Can be easily fixed and I will happily provide my support then. --Cccefalon 14:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 23:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Steindy 10:21, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CA along the iron of the side windows. And some chromatic noise, sorry. I know how it is difficult to manage light in this case...--Jebulon 10:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Jebulon 10:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Koi_Feeding_in_Mt_Qingxiu_Nanning_Close.JPG

Koi Feeding in Mt Qingxiu Nanning Close.JPG

  • Nomination Koi Feeding --Ram-Man 01:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. But creepy in a way. Aren´t there too many of them in this basin? --Hubertl 10:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    See here. Ram-Man 18:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Interesting shot, I like both the composition and the subject, but not sure whether it is a QI, I miss sharpness --Poco a poco 17:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I do realize that it is difficult to set focus on water, but here is me too much blurring in the area. --Steindy 20:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    It's water. Water, especially disturbed water, is generally soft, not sharp, as it refracts light. Note that the FP of Koi has similar issues, albeit with better composition and lighting. Ram-Man 20:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 22:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Msaynevirta 17:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yann 11:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote? Poco a poco 10:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Balaton Lake - small boat.JPG

Balaton Lake - small boat.JPG

  • Nomination Balaton, Hungary - boat --Pudelek 10:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
    * Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment WB-Problem. Everything is just blue... --Hubertl 00:41, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor color balance. To bluish. Have a look on the sail and the boat. There is no white to see. --Steindy 20:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 22:45, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    With all due respect, asking for clearing the white balance is not just a matter of taste, it´s something really basic and essential! --Hubertl 17:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Its really easy to fix it. I tried it with LR and its getting really better! --Hubertl 23:06, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Hubertl.--Jebulon 20:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment what is the Problem, Pudelek, if you don´t have the program to fix it, send me a mail, we can make it together! Its not a bad picture! --Hubertl 10:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If you want, you can try fix this photo :) --Pudelek 11:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Amanhecer no Hercules --.jpg

Amanhecer no Hercules --.jpg

  • Nomination 2nd price on Wiki Loves Earth 2014 (by Carlos Perez Couto) –Be..anyone 04:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Though it is a stunning motif, it does not comply with QI criterions: Notable magenta fringes (fixable) and blown out sky (not fixable). --Cccefalon 06:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support blown out sky dont disturb. --Ralf Roletschek 16:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The overexposure is marginal and therefore acceptable IMHO but the CA shall be fixed and there is lack of sharpness, Poco a poco 09:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Yes, there is a strong CA, but the photo still impressed me with his great composition and beautiful colors. --Steindy 20:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Cccefalon --Livioandronico2013 22:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support With all due respect, but sometimes we should give an extraordinary impression the primacy adverse to some (almost not avoidable) technical lapses.--Hubertl 00:47, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as per Hubertl. The sky is fine. This is an example of a blown sky that's correct exposure. Ram-Man 02:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I really do not understand, why a stunning motif is justifying chromatic aberrations which are easy to fix. And I noticed that for some of the reviewers it is anyway, if the descriptions is bullshit. " 2nd price on Wiki Loves Earth 2014" is an effrontery which wants to insinuate, that this motif must be QI because it got awarded in WLE. More cheeky is, that Be..anyone did this despite the fact, that I already gave this hint before in previous reviews. --Cccefalon 06:11, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    It's not that complicated: I don't normally consider CAs to be important at all. Perhaps you could fix the CAs? The exposure is fine and the only issue is the blurry foreground element which isn't that distracting. -- Ram-Man 12:36, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
    It's actually trivial, I just nominated all WLE 2014 winners that did not already have some QI or better tag with a hint what it's about. That was in the first batch of five, and reviewers such as Cccefalon are supposed to check the description on the page, the minimal note of the nominator is irrelevant. As it happens I actually like this one as is. Modifying winners after the fact is ingenious. –Be..anyone 18:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is no way that we lower the bar of QI requirements because it is a stunning shot. That can be done in FP, but not here. CA and the sharpness problem issues make me regretly oppose Poco a poco 18:42, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support CA fixed --Wilfredor 23:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment -Wilfredor, when you upload a new version, you cannot vote any more. --Cccefalon 09:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I considered that this was an automated fix minor (one click lightroom). However, you're right, my vote is invalid, thank you very much for the warning. --Wilfredor 11:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Penalizing someone for helping out? The vote should still be valid, especially in CR where everyone's opinions matter. If the person who modified it loses a vote, then the original nominator should gain the vote. Ram-Man 12:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Repairing some technical problems has nothing to do with the original, creative work. In my opinion. --Hubertl 03:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per other opposers. --P e z i 12:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The author is not participating here;may not good enough in editing too. So someone should fix if issues are minor (as already done now). Jkadavoor 16:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. Yann 21:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Msaynevirta 22:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote? Msaynevirta 22:19, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Tabla del tiempo (día 8 tras la nominación)

dom 14 dic → lun 22 dic
lun 15 dic → mar 23 dic
mar 16 dic → mié 24 dic
mié 17 dic → jue 25 dic
jue 18 dic → vie 26 dic
vie 19 dic → sáb 27 dic
sáb 20 dic → dom 28 dic
dom 21 dic → lun 29 dic
lun 22 dic → mar 30 dic