Commons:Candidats pour les images de qualité

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 93% 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 • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский
Gtk-go-down.svg Aller directement aux propositions en cours
float

Voici les candidats pour les images de qualité. Notez que ce n'est pas la même chose que les images remarquables. Aussi, si vous voulez uniquement des conseils et critiques de vos photos, allez vers les critiques de photographie.

Raison d'être

L'objectif du label Images de Qualité est d'encourager les personnes qui sont à la base du fonctionnement de Commons c'est à dire les contributeurs qui, grâce à leurs photos personnelles, permettent d'agrandir cette bibliothèque d'images. Alors que les Images remarquables rassemblent les images d'une qualité exceptionnelle chargées dans Commons, le label Image de qualité est destiné à identifier et encourager les efforts des contributeurs qui chargent des images de bonne facture dans Commons.
Par ailleurs les images recevant le label sont destinées à servir de référence pour tous les contributeurs souhaitant améliorer la qualité d'une image.

Guide

Toutes les images proposées doivent être l'œuvre d'un utilisateur de Wikicommons.

Pour les proposants

Un guide général sur les Images de Qualité, comprenant des critères plus détaillés, est disponible dans la page guide des images.

Conditions de la page de l'image
  1. Statut de copyright. Pour être éligible au titre image de qualité, l'image doit être téléchargée sur Commons et disposer d'un Bandeau de licence avec une licence acceptable.
  2. Les images doivent correspondre aux critères et conventions de Commons, incluant les photos de personnes identifiables.
  3. Les images de qualité doivent être catégorisées et avoir un titre et une description pertinente. Pour les organismes, le nom taxinomique devrait être inclus.
  4. Aucune publicité ou signature sur l'image. Toute information sur l'auteur et le copyright devrait être placé sur la page de l'image ou dans les métadonnées, afin de ne pas interférer avec le contenu de l'image.
Créateur

Les images doivent avoir être créées dans l’un des projet Wikimedia. Cela signifie que les images en provenance de Flickr ne sont pas éligibles. Remarque : le label « Featured Pictures / images remarquable » n’a pas cette limitation. Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). Si une image est promue bien que n'étant pas la création d'un Wikimédien, le statut de QI doit être retiré dès que l'erreur est détectée.

Conditions techniques

Les critères détaillés sont disponibles ici : Commons:Guide des images

Résolution

Les images qui se trouvent sur Commons ne sont pas seulement destinées à être visualisées sur un écran. Elles peuvent être imprimées ou être consultées sur des écrans à très haute résolution. Nous ne pouvons pas prédire quels appareils seront utilisés dans le futur pour les consulter. C’est pourquoi il est important que les images proposées disposent d’une résolution suffisante. 2 millions de pixels est normalement la limite basse, mais les Critiques peuvent vous en demander plus pour des images « faciles à prendre ».

Ceci ne s’applique pas aux images au format SVG.

Qualité d'image

Les images numériques peuvent souffrir de nombreux problèmes, comme le bruit, des problèmes de compression JPEG, un manque d’information dans les ombres ou les zones trop lumineuses, des problèmes de restitution des couleurs, … Tous ces problèmes doivent être gérés correctement.

Composition et éclairage

La composition de l’image doit contribuer à l’intérêt de l’image. Le premier plan ou l’arrière plan ne doivent pas détourner l’attention. L’éclairage et la mise au point contribuent à obtenir un résultat de qualité ; le sujet doit être piqué, épuré et bien exposé.

Objectif

Notre but principal est d'encourager la contribution d'images de qualité, utiles aux projets Wikimedia, sur Wikicommons.

Comment proposer une image de qualité

Il suffit d'ajouter, en haut de la section des Propositions (Nominations), sur la liste des images candidates, une ligne ayant cette forme :

File:Nom de l'image.jpg|{{/Nomination|Description très brève --~~~~ |}}

La description ne doit comporter que quelques mots ; il est également préférable de laisser une ligne blanche entre votre nouvelle proposition et celles déjà présentes.

Si vous proposez une image réalisée par un autre Wikimedian, veuillez inclure son nom d'utilisateur de la façon indiquée ci-dessous :

File:Nom de l'image.jpg|{{/Nomination|Description très brève (par [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

NB : il existe un gadget, QInominator, qui accélère la nomination. Il ajoute un petit lien "Nominate this image for QI" en haut des pages des images proposées. Cliquer sur le lien ajoute l'image à une liste d'images potentiellement candidates. Quand cette liste est terminée, allez à la liste des images candidates et, en mode édition, cliquer sur la barre verte (en haut de la fenêtre d'édition) insère tous les candidats potentiels dans la fenêtre d'édition.

Nombre de nominations

Sélectionnez correctement vos images à proposer. Proposer plus de deux images à la fois peut être considéré comme du flooding, chose qui peut être mal vue et conduire à l'évincement.

Critiques des images

Tout utilisateur enregistré peut critiquer une nomination.
Les personnes qui effectuent une évaluation doivent s'appuyer sur le même guide que le créateur de l'image.

Comment critiquer

Comment mettre à jour le statut.

Examinez attentivement l’image. Ouvrez-la en haute résolution, et vérifiez que tous les critères de qualité sont respectés.

  • Si vous décidez de promouvoir l’image nominée, changez la ligne suivante
File:Nom de l'image.jpg|{{/Nomination|Description très brève --~~~~ | }}

to

File:Nom de l'image.jpg|{{/Promotion|Description très brève --signature du nominateur |Pourquoi vous avez apprécié l'image. --~~~~}}

Autrement dit, changez le code /Nomination par /Promotion et ajoutez votre signature avec, si possible, un court commentaire.

  • Si vous décidez de refuser la promotion de l’image nominée, changez la ligne suivante
File:Nom_de_l'image.jpg|{{/Nomination|Description très brève --~~~~ | }}

to

File:Nom de l'image.jpg|{{/Decline|Description très brève --signature du nominateur |Défaut(s) trouvé(s) dans l'image. --~~~~}}

Autrement dit, changez le code /Nomination par /Decline et ajoutez votre signature avec un court commentaire indiquant les critères non satisfaisant de l'image (par exemple, avec les titres de section du guide). S'il y a beaucoup de défauts, notez seulement les 2 ou 3 plus importants, ou bien ajoutez « multiple problems » (plusieurs problèmes). Si possible, expliquez en détail vos raisons sur la page discussion du promoteur, tout en restant gentil et encourageant !

NB : s'il vous plaît, évaluez les images candidates les plus anciennes en premier.

Délai de grâce et de promotion

Si aucune objection n'est soulevée pendant une période de 2 jours (exactement 48 heures) à partir de la première critique, l'image est promue ou refusée, selon la critique qu'elle a reçue. Pour soulever une objection à la critique reçue, déplacer l'image dans la section évaluation consensuelle (Consensual review).

Comment exécuter une décision

La gestion par QICbot est automatique deux jours après la prise de décision et promeut les images en cache dans Images de qualité récemment promues qui sont en attente de catégorisation avant leur insertion dans la page Quality images appropriée.

En outre, si vous pensez avoir identifié une image exceptionnelle, qui pourrait légitimement prétendre au label d'« Image remarquable », alors vous pouvez aussi nominer l'image dans la liste des images candidates au label d'« Image remarquable »

  • Les images qui attendent une évaluation sont entourées d'une cadre bleu
  • Les images qui ont reçu une critique favorable sont entourées d'un cadre vert
  • Les images dont la promotion est refusée par la personne ayant effectué l'évaluation sont entourées d'un cadre rouge

Images non-critiquées (cadre bleu)

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives août 2014 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

L'évaluation consensuelle (Consensual review)

L'évaluation consensuelle est une procédure utilisée lorsque la procédure initiale n'a pas permis d'aboutir et qu'il est nécessaire de disposer d'autres avis.

Comment demander une évaluation consensuelle

Pour demander une évaluation consensuelle, modifiez seulement /Promotion, /Decline en /Discuss et ajoutez vos commentaires immédiatement après l'évaluation. Un robot déplacera la ligne dans la section appropriée dans la journée.

Ne mettez dans la section évaluation consensuelle que les images ayant reçu un avis soit positif soit négatif. Si, en tant qu'évaluateur, vous ne pouvez prendre une décision, vous devez ajoutez vos commentaires sans déplacer l'image.

Règles de l'évaluation consensuelle

Voir Commons:Candidats pour les images de qualité#Rules

Rafraîchir l'affichage de la page : 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]] 01:39, 1 août 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.

August 1, 2014

July 31, 2014

July 30, 2014

July 29, 2014

July 28, 2014

July 27, 2014

July 26, 2014

July 25, 2014

July 24, 2014

July 23, 2014

July 22, 2014

July 21, 2014

July 20, 2014

July 19, 2014

July 12, 2014

July 7, 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:Friese ballonfeesten in Joure 02.JPG

Friese ballonfeesten in Joure 02.JPG

  • Nomination Hot Air Balloon Festival in Joure province of Friesland in the Netherlands.
    Famberhorst 05:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Can you reduce the magenta fringe? --Cccefalon 05:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Correction
    Famberhorst 06:05, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Good quality. --Cccefalon 06:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    The sky's rather cyan don't you think? --Mattbuck 07:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is very acceptable. Not worse than your magentaish sky's, Matt. --Cccefalon 07:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support The 17:01 version solves all of the above problems. --Generic1139 15:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blurry, and the people too blurred. Too tight at top IMO--Lmbuga 17:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Lüdinghausen,_Flugplatz_Borkenberge_--_2014_--_1114.jpg

Lüdinghausen, Flugplatz Borkenberge -- 2014 -- 1114.jpg

  • Nomination Air field Borkenberge near Lüdinghausen, Germany --XRay 10:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sincerely I don't understand what sense this picture makes, maybe it needs a better description?--Moroder 19:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion ✓ Fixed Thanks. I've added "speakers ..." to the description.--XRay 05:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Good quality. --Moroder 16:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    I think the speakers (main subject) are too dark. --El Grafo 08:15, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Thanks. It's fixed now.--XRay 17:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support --Generic1139 15:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

File:OceanCityBay.JPG

OceanCityBay.JPG

  • Nomination Bay of Ocean City, Maryland (USA) --Démosthène 02:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Tilted ccw. Magenta CA. At least 2 disturbances in the sky (see notes). All fixable. --Cccefalon 06:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done New file uploaded. I hope it's better now but feel free to reverse. --JLPC 21:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Now it looks ok to me. --Stegop 13:13, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - dust spot to the right of the plane. Mattbuck 20:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

File:University of East London MMB 03 Royal Albert Dock.jpg

University of East London MMB 03 Royal Albert Dock.jpg

  • Nomination Royal Albert Dock. Mattbuck 06:37, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Non-existent subject, negligible EV. Yerpo 14:47, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    Not a reason to decline at quality images. --Mattbuck 23:10, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes it is, see Commons:Image guidelines#Quality and featured photographic images. Even without this formality, the photo is extremely average, not sure what quality it's supposed to have. Sorry. --Yerpo 07:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The subject here is water. I dont think the photograph shows water in a good way. Neither weather, choice of lens, or the choice of angle is adequate for the purpose. There are strong reflections, limited DOF and perspective distortion (partially because of the choice of angle, especially the upper right corner that is furthest away from the camera). I'm sorry if I'm wrong, but to me it seems to be random snapshot. --ArildV 08:32, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with comments above. --Iifar 10:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per ArildV. --Lewis Hulbert 15:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Rode zonnehoed (Echinacea purpurea).JPG

Rode zonnehoed (Echinacea purpurea).JPG

  • Nomination Echinacea purpurea.
    Famberhorst 15:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Background a bit noisy, but QI overall --Poco a poco 18:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, In my opinion the background and the edges spoils the picture: Artifacts, noise, too sharpened IMO--Lmbuga 18:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMHO the photo is oversharpened, especially the background and edges. --Tuxyso 11:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


File:Paris,_Litfasssäule_--_2014_--_1169.jpg

Paris, Litfasssäule -- 2014 -- 1169.jpg

  • Nomination Advertising column, Paris, France --XRay 07:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support IMO it's QI. --Stegop 20:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
    You should promote it then.
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I oppose because a) the lower part of the column is invisible, b) the flat background is disturbing (why not take the pic from the right or left side to gain some depth from central perspective?), and c) top side crop is too tight. Move to CR. --Kreuzschnabel 09:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I understand Kreuzschnabel's argument but it is imho no QI concern here. The column is well places between the two white window shutters. --Tuxyso 11:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The crop at the top is very tight, and the spire is out of focus and lost in the background. The main subject is partially occluded, and the small shoot of the flowers goes almost 1/2 up the uncovered part of the ad. If the interesting part of the image is the green dome at the top and its spire, it needs more headroom. --Generic1139 16:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Balung_Tawau_Sabah_Sawit-Kinabalu-Seeds-Sdn-Bhd-02.jpg

Balung Tawau Sabah Sawit-Kinabalu-Seeds-Sdn-Bhd-02.jpg

  • Nomination Entrance to the Seed Production Unit of Sawit Kinabalu Seeds Sdn Bhd in Kg Balung, Sabah --Cccefalon 11:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Imo the top background nedds to be generously cropped because it is distracting, even if blurred --Moroder 14:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is intentionally, to see the SAWIT logo in the background. Cropping would destroy the logo as well as the compo. --Cccefalon 21:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Than the logo in the back shöuldn't be blurred --Moroder 12:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Bad clipping top right. Mattbuck 18:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
    Dear Mattbuck I already asked you at other occasions not to decline for reason of minor issues which are absolutely easy to fix. The missing constraint operation can be done easily. --Cccefalon 08:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC) and is ✓ Done now --Cccefalon 17:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion

File:Statua Giuseppe Mazzini aventino.jpg

Statua Giuseppe Mazzini aventino.jpg

File:Hydrangea macrophylla 005.JPG

Hydrangea macrophylla 005.JPG

  • Nomination Hydrangea macrophylla, with flattened umbels.
    Famberhorst 15:21, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too processed (see note as example)--Lmbuga 19:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think that the shadow of the large leaves.
    Famberhorst 04:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
    Perhaps I'm not right: "Discuss" is better--Lmbuga 19:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose At first sight it is very good, but looking carefully at the full resolution I find the DOF inadequate, as only some parts of the pethals are sharp - IMO some of the centres should be sharp. --Stegop 13:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

File: Adansonia digitata_arbre_MHNT.jpg

Adansonia digitata arbre MHNT.jpg

  • Nomination , arbre of Baobab - arbre de Baobab --Ercé 13:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A little bit more contrast wouldn't hurt and that sky is kind of dull, but since I suspect that it is very realistic, maybe it is QI. --Stegop 00:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New version. --Ercé 11:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CA, strange colours, blurry bottom. Mattbuck 16:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done OK ! New new version. --Ercé 13:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok good now --Archaeodontosaurus 14:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Stegop 23:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Club_Alpino_Italiano_sign_at_the_Langkofelhütte.jpg

Club Alpino Italiano sign at the Langkofelhütte.jpg

  • Nomination Club Alpino Italiano sign at the Langkofelhütte in Val Gardena --Moroder 15:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Corners of the plaque are blurred. --Mattbuck 17:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I disagree, sensless review --Moroder 22:09, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Have a look at the rock above the eagle, around the rusty dots. There’s definitely motion blur visible, resulting either from earthquake or camera shake. (I reckon that’s the price of high resolution.) --Kreuzschnabel 11:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
          • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It must be me with Parkinson's even at shutter speed 1/500 --Moroder 14:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Male_Ruby-Throated_Hummingbird_Hovering.jpg

Male Ruby-Throated Hummingbird Hovering.jpg

  • Nomination Male Ruby-Throated Hummingbird --Pslawinski 21:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion {{s|weak support}} It's a picture hard to take, but I know your other exceptional picture. It's not a photo as good as another, but QI IMO--Lmbuga 00:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    It is too dark. Can you please brighten it? At least the background, so there's contrast. Once it's updated, I'll support. --Kadellar 12:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I'm agree with Kadellar--Lmbuga 20:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support For me it is ok! But I agree that a higher contrast to the background would improve it. --Uoaei1 06:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Cova_e_xistos_na_praia_de_Augas_Santas_ou_das_Catedrais._Devesa._Ribadeo._Galiza-13.jpg

Cova e xistos na praia de Augas Santas ou das Catedrais. Devesa. Ribadeo. Galiza-13.jpg

  • Nomination Cave and schist. Beach of Augas Santas or beach of the Cathedrals, Devesa, Ribadeo, Galicia (Spain)-13 --Lmbuga 00:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    Sorry, "discuss": I want to konw the problem of this image: 5,616 × 3,744 pixels.
  • Discussion

File:Kirche Bruchenbrücken (1).jpg

Kirche Bruchenbrücken (1).jpg

  • Nomination Church in Bruchenbrücken --Hydro 18:05, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Needs perspective correction. Perhaps you can apply a crop that is avoiding the part of a roof at the right side. --Cccefalon 20:19, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    •  Not done Mattbuck 16:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
      • I removed the part of the roof but don't see a need of perspective correction. --Hydro 17:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
        • Perspective distortion fixed, vertical lines were clearly converging. --Kreuzschnabel 11:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Vientiane - Wat Chan - 0011.jpg

Vientiane - Wat Chan - 0011.jpg

  • Nomination Prayer hall at Wat Chan, Vientiane, Laos -- DerFussi 21:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Heavy noise reduction caused much loss of details. There are also strange halos in the image. There may be perspective problems too. Wrongly processed, otherwise a very nice image. --Joydeep 16:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI should not work at night after a bottle of wine... It was the Smart Sharpen Filter in Photoshop, that apllied a heavy noise reduction partly, not the processing - unfortunately not at the spots I checked. Normally I am not a fan of heavy noise reduction. Do I have any chance with a re-upload? Are there perspective problems or not? Can you give me a hint where? I used some guide lines to check it. -- DerFussi 17:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    You can surely reupload another version of this file. Sharper version would be very good. There are minor perspective issues, I have made some annotations. --Joydeep 19:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    I've checked the perspective issues. Look at my screenshots [1],[2] and [3]. Thats very slighty. Maybe 1,5px on the left side, if you look at 300%. OK. I'll kick the smart sharpen filter and rework it tonight. Upload a new one anyway and will decide whether its good enough - and never work at late night. Thanks. -- DerFussi 04:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)✓ Done reworked -- DerFussi 20:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There are several optical illusions working against you here, the curved item over the central peak, the central columns get narrower as they go up, the wires crossing at an angle, and the left front wall's horizontal tilts, even though the vertical there is mostly vertical. Sharpness is improved, though. --Generic1139 21:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes, it is a bit tricky. If I wanted to put it on my wall here, I would retouch it and remove all wires, but I lack in time. The QI is not a must have. I consider it as a part of a learning process, not as a contest. :) Thanks for the comments. -- DerFussi 08:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Ascensor del Monte San Pedro.La Coruña.005.JPG

Ascensor del Monte San Pedro.La Coruña.005.JPG

  • Nomination Elevator in San Pedro's Mount, in Corunna, Spain. --Drow male 13:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment See note: Red and cyan CAs. Overxposed areas? If you fix the CAs, it's good for me--Lmbuga 14:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If you can't fix the chromatic aberrations, I can fix CAs, but I don't have the RAW file--Lmbuga 15:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
    *✓ Done by me. New version: Discuss--Lmbuga 01:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI now imo --Lewis Hulbert 21:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Mallorca_-_Cap_Figuera2.jpg

Mallorca - Cap Figuera2.jpg

  • Nomination Figuera Bay, Majorca --Taxiarchos228 06:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --JLPC 14:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    Weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Nice, but there are areas with good contrast and clarity bordering areas with low contrast and clarity (see note). The horizon is a bit tilted--Lmbuga 17:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
    Lmbuga: the horizon is straight now, but the different contrasts are result of different angle of the plants and is not a fault auf my or the camera. There are also more of those areas with different contrast, but this is absolutley natural. --Taxiarchos228 19:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not agree, sorry--Lmbuga 21:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
if you agree or not, that are the facts. --Taxiarchos228 07:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good for QI, the contrast is naturally. --Ralf Roletschek 07:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Vientiane - Wat Chan - 0001.jpg

Vientiane - Wat Chan - 0001.jpg

  • Nomination The meeting and prayer room of Wat Chan, Vientiane -- DerFussi 19:17, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Cayambe 11:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It looks wee tilted to the right (0.001 deg? :), which wouldn't be ok if the angled POV and the natural inclination of the trees didn't increase the tilt appearance. Otherwise it is great, despite the dull sky which can't be changed. --Stegop 23:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Nationalpark_Jasmund_-_Insel_Rügen.jpg

Nationalpark Jasmund - Insel Rügen.jpg

  • Nomination Chalk cliffs of Rügen, Jasmund National Park, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany. By User:Hrauk --Frank Schulenburg 14:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Composition and lighting (sky, contrast, colours)) --Steinsplitter 14:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI IMO --Christian Ferrer 17:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything with the composition or colours, but the low levels need brightening. Mattbuck 07:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Somewhat oversharpened and small compression artifacts. @Mattbuck: Yes, the dark side of the tree ;-) is a bit too dark and shows no detail, but thats at the margin and imho not really an issue. Lacking geo coordinates. -- Smial 11:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI to me --DKrieger 15:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Merfeld,_Wildpferdefang_--_2014_--_0798.jpg

Merfeld, Wildpferdefang -- 2014 -- 0798.jpg

  • Nomination Capturing the yearlings: Wildpferdefang 2014, Merfelder Bruch, Dülmen, Germany --XRay 05:54, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Red channel overexposure. --Mattbuck 09:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Red channel is improved.--XRay 06:06, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Severe problems with composition (the head is hidden and it's impossible to see what the middle guy is doing. Also hard to see value of this photo among the other better images of the same happening. --Averater (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Merfeld,_Wildpferdefang,_Vorprogramm_--_2014_--_0499.jpg

Merfeld, Wildpferdefang, Vorprogramm -- 2014 -- 0499.jpg

  • Nomination Preliminary Program (unknown actor); Wildpferdefang 2014, Merfelder Bruch, Dülmen, Germany --XRay 05:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    Red channel blown on jacket. --Kreuzschnabel 14:35, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Fixed Red channel is now improved. It's better. Thanks for your advice.--XRay 06:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, much better. Generic1139 16:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Anthemis 'E.C. Buxton'.JPG

Anthemis 'E.C. Buxton'.JPG

  • Nomination Anthemis 'E.C. Buxton'. Chamomile.
    Famberhorst 15:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion At first sight it is good, but looking carefully, I think that the DOF should cover the center of the flower and not only the foreground. Sorry, I imagine how difficult it can be shooting this kind of photo. --Stegop 23:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC) Have to disagree with Stegop. Think focus is well chosen. Object well represented and sharp. --Klaproth 23:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support DoF a bit small indeed, but acceptable here IMO --Christian Ferrer 10:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Essential parts are sharp enough. -- Smial 21:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Distracting background, especially the flower to the left. --Averater 07:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As Averater and poor DOF--Lmbuga 02:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Neo-Riemannian Tonnetz.svg

Neo-Riemannian Tonnetz.svg

  • Nomination The Neo-Riemannian Tonnetz, showing relations between triads --Mate2code 02:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • A useful image, however, the small annotations denoting secondary operations are too small to read except at higher res. Can you make them a larger font, or a darker grey?--Generic1139 12:15, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done The gray letters are now readable on the description page. In my opinion only the letters N, S and H need to be readable from articles, the gray letters are just auxiliary information. Mate2code 12:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Generic1139 16:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Christian Ferrer 05:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Burgruine Hohenegg 8666.jpg

Burgruine Hohenegg 8666.jpg

  • Nomination Burgruine Hohenegg, Austria --Hamster28 13:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Refusée Too much softening (fine details in the wall structure are extinguished). Magenta CA bottom right. --Cccefalon 13:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharpness and colours look just right to me. --Stegop 23:30, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThe softened details look nice, like a kind of drawing. Was it intentionally? As an artwork? Then describe it on the description page, and I give a "pro". If not and it should be a "normal" photo, I agree Cccefalon. -- DerFussi 14:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too processed, perhaps Featured picture, but not Quality Image IMO--Lmbuga 02:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC).
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too much noise reduction --Christian Ferrer 05:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Christian Ferrer 05:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Emploi du temps (8eme jour après la proposition)

Jeu. 24 juil → Ven. 01 août
Ven. 25 juil → Sam. 02 août
Sam. 26 juil → Dim. 03 août
Dim. 27 juil → Lun. 04 août
Lun. 28 juil → Mar. 05 août
Mar. 29 juil → Mer. 06 août
Mer. 30 juil → Jeu. 07 août
Jeu. 31 juil → Ven. 08 août
Ven. 01 août → Sam. 09 août