Commons:Kandidaten für Qualitätsbilder

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 100% 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.

Zu den Nominierungen springen
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎svenska
float

Dies sind die Kandidaten für Qualitätsbilder Beachte bitte, dass es sich hierbei nicht um die exzellenten Bilder handelt. Falls du nur Kommentare zu eigenen Bildern erhalten möchtest, ist die Seite Photography critiques der richtige Ort.

Hintergrund

Der Zweck der Qualitätsbilder ist, die einzelnen Benutzer anzuregen, einzigartige Bilder zur Verfügung zu stellen, um diese Ansammlung zu erweitern. Während exzellente Bilder die absolut besten Bilder darstellen, sollen Qualitätsbilder dazu anregen, selbst solche qualitativ hochwertigen Bilder zu erstellen.
Außerdem sollen Qualitätsbilder dazu dienen, anderen Benutzern die Methoden der Verbesserung eines Bildes zu erklären.

Richtlinien

Alle vorgeschlagenen Bilder sollten von Commons-Benutzern sein.

Für Vorschlagende von Qualitätsbildern

Unten werden die wichtigsten Richtlinien für Qualitätsbilder genannt, ausführliche Informationen findet man unter Qualitätsbildrichtlinien.

Anforderungen an die Bilder

  1. Copyrightstatus. Qualitätsbilder müssen unter verwendbarer Lizenz hochgeladen werden. Alle Lizenzanforderungen sind unter COM:CT zu finden.
  2. Bilder sollten den Commons-Richtlinien entsprechen, einschließlich 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. In den Bildern soll keine Werbung oder Signatur enthalten sein. Die Copyright- und Autorhinweise sollen auf der Seite mit angegeben sein. Sie können auch in den Metadaten enthalten sein, sollen aber den Bildinhalt nicht behindern.


Urheber

Bilder müssen von einem Wikimedianer erstellt worden sein, um als Qualitätsbilder ausgezeichnet werden zu können. Das bedeutet, dass Bilder von z.B. Flickr nicht geeignet sind. (Die Auszeichnung als exzellenten Bild hat diese Einschränkung nicht.) Von Wikimedianern erstellte photographische Reproduktionen zweidimensionaler Kunstwerke sind zulässig (und sollten der Richtlinie entsprechend als PD-old markiert sein). Wenn ein Bild ausgezeichnet wird, obwohl es nicht von einem Wikimedianer erstellt wurde, sollte die Auszeichnung wieder entfernt werden, sowie der Fehler bemerkt wird.

Technische Anforderungen

Ausführliche technische Anforderungen stehen unter Qualitätsbildrichtlinien.

Auflösung

Die Grafiken bei Commons werden nicht nur auf dem Bildschirm betrachtet, sie sollen auch für den Ausdruck oder für die Betrachtung auf hochauflösenden Bildschirmen geeignet sein. Da auch niemand vorhersehen kann, welche Geräte in der Zukunft verwendet werden, sollten Bilder eine brauchbare Auflösung bieten und nicht unnötig verkleinert werden. Als Untergrenze gelten zwei MegaPixel, wobei an Aufnahmen, die relativ einfach zu erstellen sind, von den Bewertern auch höhere Ansprüche gestellt werden können.

Das gilt natürlich nicht für Vektorgrafiken (SVG).

Bildqualität

Digitale Bilder sind verschiedenen Problemen beim Aufnehmen und beim Speichern ausgesetzt, wie z.B. Bildrauschen, Artefakte bei der JPEG-Kompression, abgesoffene Schatten- oder Spitzlichterbereiche oder falscher Weißabgleich. All diese Kriterien sollten berücksichtigt werden.

Bildaufbau und Beleuchtung

Die Anordnung des Hauptgegenstandes sollte zum Inhalt des Bildes beitragen. Der Vordergrund und Hintergrund des Bildes sollte nicht ablenken. Beleuchtung und Fokus tragen auch zum gesamten Resultat bei; der Hauptgegenstand sollte scharf sein.

Wert

Unser Hauptziel ist es, Qualitätsbilder zu sammeln, die wertvoll für alle Wikimedia-Projekte sind.

Wie man ein Qualitätsbild vorschlägt

Einfach eine Zeile unter Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list im Abschnitt Nominations einfügen

File:HierDerBildname.jpg|{{/Nomination|1=Sehr kurze Beschreibung --~~~~ |2=}}

Die Beschreibung sollte sehr kurz gefasst sein und aus wenigen Worten bestehen. Bitte lasse zudem zwischen deinem neuen Eintrag und einem noch existierenden alten Eintrag eine Zeile frei. Mehr als nur ein paar wenige Bilder hinzuzufügen, kann zu Datenstau führen und ist daher verpönt.

Wenn du das Bild eines anderen Wikimedianers nominierst, dann füge dessen Benutzernamen in die Beschreibung wie folgend

File:HierDerBildname.jpg|{{/Nomination|Sehr kurze Beschreibung (by [[User:BENUTZERNAME|BENUTZERNAME)]] --~~~~ |}}

Hinweis: Es existiert ein Helferlein, QInominator, mit dem man Bilder einfacher vorschlagen kann. Es fügt einen kleinen „Nominate this image for QI“-Link oben auf jeder Dateibeschreibungsseite hinzu. Klickt man auf den Link, wird das Bild zu einer Liste möglicher Kandidaten hinzugefügt. Sowie diese Liste vollständig ist, bearbeite Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. Oben im Bearbeitungsfenster wird ein grüner Balken angezeigt. Klickst du auf den Balken, werden alle möglichen Kandidaten in das Bearbeitungsfenster eingefügt.


Anzahl der Vorschläge

Wähle sorgfältig deine besten Bilder zur Nominierung aus. Nominierst du mehr als ein paar Bilder auf einmal, kann dies als flooding ausgelegt werden, das zumindest verpönt ist oder sogar zur unmittelbaren Ablehnung deiner Vorschläge führen kann.

Bilder bewerten

Jeder angemeldete Benutzer bis auf den Vorschlagenden darf Bilder bewerten.
Beim Bewerten von Bildern sollten Rezensenten dieselben Richtlinien beachten wie der Vorschlagende.

Wie man bewertet

Wie man den Status aktualisiert

Betrachte aufmerksam das Bild, öffne es in voller Auflösung, und überprüfe, ob die Qualitätsstandards eingehalten worden sind.

  • Wenn du Dich entscheidest, das Bild zu unterstützen, ändere folgende Zeile von
File:HierDerBildname.jpg|{{/Nomination|Sehr kurze Beschreibung --~~~~ |}}

to

File:HierDerBildname.jpg|{{/Promotion|Sehr kurze Beschreibung --Signatur des Antragsstellers|Warum Du dafür bist. --~~~~}}

In anderen Worten, ändere die Vorlage von /Nomination in /Promotion und füge Deine Signatur hinzu, wenn möglich mit einer kurzen Begründung.

  • Wenn du Dich entscheidest, das Bild abzulehnen, ändere folgende Zeile von
File:HierDerBildname.jpg|{{/Nomination|Sehr kurze Beschreibung --~~~~ | }}

to

File:HierDerBildname.jpg|{{/Decline|Sehr kurze Beschreibung --Signatur des Antragsstellers |Warum es Dir nicht gefällt. --~~~~}}

In anderen Worten, ändere die Vorlage von /Nomination in /Decline und füge Deine Signatur hinzu, wenn möglich mit einen Kommentar dazu, aus welchem Grund es nicht ernannt wurde (Du kannst die Überschriften der Richtlinien dazu verwenden). Wenn zahlreiche Probleme erkennbar sind, nenne am besten nur die zwei bis drei dringlichsten, oder füge einfach die Phrase multiple problems ein. Bei einer Ablehnung hinterlasse bitte den ausführlichen Kommentar auf der Diskussionsseite des Benutzers. Denke daran, höflich zu bleiben. In dieser Nachricht solltest Du eine ausführlichere Begründung für Deine Ablehnung geben.

Hinweis: Bitte zuerst die ältesten Bilder bewerten.

Schonfrist und Ernennung

Wenn es innerhalb von zwei Tagen (genau 48 Stunden) nach der Bewertung keinen Widerspruch gibt, ist das Bild entweder ernannt oder gescheitert. Wenn du Einwände hast, kannst du das Bild in die Sektion einvernehmliche Beurteilung (consensual review) verschieben, indem du den Status des Bildes in Discuss änderst.

Weitere Vorgehensweise

QICbot macht dies automatisch zwei Tage, nachdem eine Entscheidung getroffen wurde. Ausgezeichnete Bilder werden unter Commons:Quality_Images/Recently_promoted zwischengespeichert, um kategorisiert zu werden, bevor sie automatisch auf die entsprechenden Qualitätsbilder-Seiten eingefügt werden.

Wenn du glaubst, ein Ausnahmebild gefunden zu haben, das den Status „Exzellentes Bild“ verdient, dann nominiere es auch auf Commons:Kandidaten für exzellente Bilder.

  • Bilder, die noch bewertet werden müssen, sind blau umrandet.
  • Bilder, die ernannt wurden, sind grün umrandet.
  • Bilder, die abgelehnt wurden, sind rot umrandet.

Nicht beurteilte Bilder (blau umrandete Bewerbung)

Vorgeschlagene Bilder, die weder Stimmen für eine zustimmende noch für eine ablehnende Bewertung gesammelt haben oder Einvernehmen – gleicher Widerstand wie Unterstützung in einvernehmlicher Beurteilung – in der Bewertung erzielen, sollten nach acht Tagen auf dieser Seite ohne Auszeichnung von dieser Seite entfernt werden. Archiviert werden solche Bilder unter Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives Dezember 2014, kategorisiert mit Category:Unassessed QI candidates auf der Beschreibungsseite des Bildes.

Einvernehmliche Beurteilung

Einvernehmliche Beurteilung (consensual review) wird immer dann eingesetzt, wenn der oben beschriebene Prozess nicht ausreicht und eine Diskussion erforderlich ist, um zu mehr Meinungen zu kommen.

Wie man um einvernehmliche Beurteilung bittet

Um eine einvernehmliche Beurteilung zu fordern, ändere einfach das /Promotion, /Decline zu /Discuss und füge unmittelbar an die Beurteilung deinen Kommentar an. Ein automatisierter Bot wird es innerhalb eines Tages in den Abschnitt Einvernehmliche Beurteilung verschieben.

Bitte schicke nur Dinge zur einvernehmlichen Beurteilung, die als angenommen oder abgelehnt beurteilt wurden. Im Falle, dass du als Urteilender dich nicht entscheiden kannst, hinterlasse deine Kommentare, aber lasse den Kandidaten auf der Seite.

Regeln für die einvernehmliche Beurteilung

Siehe Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Rules

Seite neu laden: 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]] 20:25, 26 Dezember 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 26, 2014

December 25, 2014

December 24, 2014

December 23, 2014

Jebulon

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 13, 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:Kuala_Lumpur_Methodist-1-2-Brickfields-Girl-Primary-School-02.jpg

Kuala Lumpur Methodist-1-2-Brickfields-Girl-Primary-School-02.jpg

  • Nomination Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Sentral Vista building. In the foreground the Methodist 1 & 2 Brickfields Girl Primary School --Cccefalon 08:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg SupportGood quality. --Livioandronico2013 10:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The sky is very overexposed for me. --Steindy 13:52, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
    Have a look at the histogram and you will see at the first glimpse, that there is nothing overexposed. --Cccefalon 15:58, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
    I am aware that your photos are always perfect. Only my photos are ░▒▓█▓▒░ in your eyes. --Steindy 22:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support QI to me --DKrieger 15:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support a white sky but with no details lost --Christian Ferrer 17:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

File:14-08-13-helsinki-RalfR-17.jpg

14-08-13-helsinki-RalfR-17.jpg

  • Nomination Helsinki, Ravintola Vltava --Ralf Roletschek 18:31, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Please add a correct categorization. "Helsinki/unsortiert" is not complying with commons category system. --Cccefalon 20:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC) ✓ Done --Ralf Roletschek 19:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    Dark, perspective issues. Mattbuck 10:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support I do not see what it is supposed to be dark. The perspective corresponds well to the natural perspective. I do not understand why does everything always have to be ironed. --Steindy 22:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

File:14-08-13-helsinki-RalfR-04.jpg

14-08-13-helsinki-RalfR-04.jpg

  • Nomination Helsinki, Suomenlinna Ferry --Ralf Roletschek 06:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Needs sharpening and brightening of low levels. Mattbuck 07:45, 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)
  • Discussion ✓ Done --Ralf Roletschek 19:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    Photo issues not corrected. Mattbuck 10:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg SupportFor me, the quality is quite sufficient in comparison to other photos. --Steindy 13:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

File:14-08-13-helsinki-RalfR-18.jpg

14-08-13-helsinki-RalfR-18.jpg

  • Nomination Helsinki, main post building --Ralf Roletschek 06:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentPlease add a correct categorization. "Helsinki/unsortiert" is not complying with commons category system. --Cccefalon 20:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective correction not done, a lot of empty space at the bottom, cropped thing at the top. Mattbuck 10:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The slightly converging lines correspond perfectly to the natural vision. Not all photos are straightened. Otherwise, good quality. --Steindy 13:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Mattbuck – even if PD is acceptable, the framing is still very unfavourable. --Kreuzschnabel 12:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Cascade de Aïn Legradj à Bordj Bou Arreredj.jpg

Cascade de Aïn Legradj à Bordj Bou Arreredj.jpg

  • Nomination 10th place in Wiki Loves Earth 2014 (by Chettouh Nabil) –Be..anyone 02:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Please use an appropriate description of the file content. --Cccefalon 06:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
    Bad CA, bit oversharpened. Mattbuck 10:23, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support I see no disturbing CA, but a wonderful photo that speaks to me of the design. Especially nice that the water is not frozen. For me, of course QI. Tastes and views are just different. --Steindy 13:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. Yann 11:41, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMHO, it's quite yellow. --C messier 18:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

File:2014_Gagra,_Plaża_(11).jpg

2014 Gagra, Plaża (11).jpg

  • Nomination The beach. Gagra, Gagra District, Abkhazia. --Halavar 01:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Picture is unsharp --Jacek Halicki 20:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree. How sharp do you want it? Look at the stones. Its getting a little unsharp in the upper third part, but the rest is really ok. If you want more sharpness, you need a tilt/shift-lens from this position. --Hubertl 21:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment ✓ Done Sharpness added. But this is maximum I can add. More would create artifacts. --Halavar 23:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Tamula järv 2013 09.jpg

Tamula järv 2013 09.jpg

  • Nomination Lake Tamula in Võru (by Vaido Otsar). Kruusamägi 13:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality and pretty. I linke this warm colors. --Steindy 18:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Possibly the jpg artefacts escaped your attention. You can see them especially in the sky. --Cccefalon 20:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Sag, bist jetzt am Pixelzählen und beim Steindy-Nachstellen? Es fällt langsam auf! (verärgert und kopfschüttelnd)--Hubertl 23:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Kein Grund, meine Reviews auf eine persönliche Ebene zu stellen. Sind da Artefakte oder nicht? --Cccefalon 05:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Lasse ihn doch, Hubertl. Manchen Gutmenschen verschafft das Bashing anderer Benutzer eben Spass und Befriedigung. Das zieht sich schon seit Wochen wie ein roter Faden durch QI. Diese Freude sollst Du ihnen doch nicht verderben ;-) --Steindy 13:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC) PS: Im Zweiten darunter siehst Du gleich den nächsten, dem dies persönliche Freude bereitet.
          • Vorsicht mit solchen Kommentaren, als linkslinke Zecke gehöre ich zu den Gutmenschen...--Hubertl 19:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The JPEG quality is low indeed. This should be easily fixable IMO. --Code 08:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry per Cccefalon --Livioandronico2013 11:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Feuerhimmel 4.JPG

Feuerhimmel 4.JPG

  • Nomination "Heavenly fire" (red sky/"Feuerhimmel"), 2014-12-22, Graz, Austria. --Dnalor 01 11:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality for me. I have the magnificent sunset also photographed yesterday near Wiener Neustadt. --Steindy 18:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Possibly the posterized areas escaped your notice. I made an annotation as an example.Not a QI IMO. --Cccefalon 20:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm really looking forward to the discussion.--Hubertl 22:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it's acceptable considering the size. I wouldn't have seen the posterization at all without Cccefalon's hint. --Code 08:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is something, which makes me seriously thoughtful: This shot is made with one of the actual best cameras with the greatest dynamic range (better than Canon 5DMIII, 6D), and its extremely close to the Nikon D810, with probably no quality difference. I don´t know, what lens Dnalor has used, as far as I know, he isn´t using a cam like this with a 200 €-Lens. I don´t think, that this is a postprocessing problem. Maybe we should think about, that under this conditions, there are possibly natural halos, posterisations and other phenomenons, we all don´t know. Usually, when we see something like this, we take only the overall impression. We have to realize, that there is damp and light working together. Normally, we are not surprised, when we see a rainbow. Can´t it be that this is just part of a completely natural phenomenon and this posterization simply reality and not an aberration distortion of the camera and lens?--Hubertl 09:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For your information: Hubertl was right: I've used an AF-S NIKKOR 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR, that's not a 200 €-lens, "it offers outstanding sharpness for a broad zoom range, a remarkably versatile zoom lens best suited for travel and other outdoor applications" (product information/Nikon USA). --Dnalor 01 10:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Though I know it's a so called "to-do-everything"-lens, I'm sure it's a high-quality-product (have a look at Ken Rockwells comment). --Dnalor 01 11:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
    • I just have a look, what Ken Rockwell is saying about this lens. Except some distortions, he fully recommends it. I mean - its a extreme telezoom - you can never compare this with a prime lens. But with the given settings, you can´t do it even better. I just hope, you did not make any mistakes during the postprocessing. But in my opinion, you did everything right with this picture in this situation. Maybe we can ask Steindy, if he too has some "posterizations". In the very end, it´s just physics. Maybe you are the conqueror of a new physical phenomenon, we will call it Dnalorisation :-) --Hubertl 10:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
      • I think, Steindy has the same lens. But he does not do Raw-pictures. Because of his main-interest, action photography.--Hubertl 11:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. Yann 11:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Red channel is clipping in some areas, but the visual quality and appearance is not substantially affected here. -- Smial 15:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Feuerhimmel 3.JPG

Feuerhimmel 3.JPG

  • Nomination "Heavenly fire" (red sky/"Feuerhimmel"), 2014-12-22, Graz, Austria. --Dnalor 01 11:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality for me. --Steindy 18:16, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Possibly the posterized areas escaped your notice. I made an annotation as an example.Not a QI IMO. --Cccefalon 20:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is something, which makes me seriously thoughtful: This shot is made with one of the actual best cameras with the greatest dynamic range (better than Canon 5DMIII, 6D), and its extremely close to the Nikon D810, with probably no quality difference. I don´t know, what lens Dnalor has used, as far as I know, he isn´t using a cam like this with a 200 €-Lens. I don´t think, that this is a postprocessing problem. Maybe we should think about, that under this conditions, there are possibly natural halos, posterisations and other phenomenons, we all don´t know. Usually, when we see something like this, we take only the overall impression. We have to realize, that there is damp and light working together. Normally, we are not surprised, when we see a rainbow. Can´t it be that this is just part of a completely natural phenomenon and this posterization simply reality and not an aberration distortion of the camera and lens?--Hubertl 09:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For your information: Hubertl was right: I've used an AF-S NIKKOR 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR, that's not a 200 €-lens, "it offers outstanding sharpness for a broad zoom range, a remarkably versatile zoom lens best suited for travel and other outdoor applications" (product information/Nikon USA). --Dnalor 01 10:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
        • Though I know it's a so called "to-do-everything"-lens, I'm sure it's a high-quality-product (have a look at Ken Rockwells comment). --Dnalor 01 11:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. Yann 11:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Also for me, its OK.--Hubertl 17:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Red channel is clipping in some areas, but the visual quality and appearance is not substantially affected here. Btw: Lens quality usually has no impact on exposure. Over- or underexposure can be done with 50$ lenses and with 5000$ lenses. -- Smial 15:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Kuiper_belt_-_Oort_cloud_numbered.svg

Kuiper belt - Oort cloud numbered.svg

  • Nomination Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud. --Medium69 21:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Technically interesting, if you used it to construct the Arab JPEG. But 26,000 lines in the data URL for an embedded PNG is gross. The validator and Chrome barely managed it, one picture extension crashed (first time ever). The source JPG containing the Oort cloud cutaway is 60KB, why embed this as huge PNG? –Be..anyone 13:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    PNG is automatically created by Adobe Illustrator. For the rest, I hesitated for vector and matrix. I am aware that the picture is complicated.--Medium69 16:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    Suggestion, upload the used (crop of the) source JPG, it should be anyway free; and I'll try to get a shorter data JPG data URL, the quality in the Arab JPG is actually better than the AI PNG. The huge SVG is certainly an interesting test case for librsvg etc. –Be..anyone 00:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
    @Be..anyone: ✓ Done Finally, I took the original JPG and I extracted the Oort cloud into a transparent PNG. I have included it in PNG image, and I admit it's much prettier.

File:AT-13765_Michaelertrakt_-_Figuren_-_hu_-_6524.jpg

AT-13765 Michaelertrakt - Figuren - hu - 6524.jpg

  • Nomination Figures at the facade of the Michaelertrakt, seen from Michaeler square --Hubertl 00:26, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Perfect. --Steindy 01:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for now. Not perfectly perfect, could benefit of a better categorization: identification of coats of arms is necessary !--Jebulon 19:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment the topic of this is not the coat of arms, the topic is the figure group on the facade of the Michaelertrakt. But I´m waiting right now for two historical-scientific books (the only ones) about the Hofburg, each for 90 US-$. I hope, I will get the answer from there. --Hubertl 09:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. Yann 11:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC).
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good quality...anyway Jebulon included two categories and identified the CoA --Livioandronico2013 10:19, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Manifestación_contra_la_Ley_Mordaza_en_Madrid_20-12-2014_-_06.jpg

Manifestación contra la Ley Mordaza en Madrid 20-12-2014 - 06.jpg

  • Nomination Demonstration against the "Gag Law" in Madrid, 20th December 2014. --Kadellar 14:07, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeInsufficient quality.Very parts blurred,some overexposed area --Livioandronico2013 22:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    Focus is where it has to be, on the man with the gag. --Kadellar 10:17, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, but the majority of the total picture is blurred --Livioandronico2013 11:25, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    This picture, for example, is mostly out of focus, and it's great. It's called attracting your eye and attention to the part on focus. Composition is not only about rule of thirds. --Kadellar 16:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    For you is a great for me is the oppose --Livioandronico2013 17:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportFor me a well done reportagephoto. --Steindy 18:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. Yann 11:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Sharpness not 100% on the eyes, but good enough for street shot in the crowd. --Smial 15:12, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Barbaros Koyu - Palaiapolis 02.jpg

Barbaros Koyu - Palaiapolis 02.jpg

  • Nomination Valley to Barbaros Bay (Palaiapolis ancient city), Mersin - Turkey --Zeynel Cebeci 21:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality --Halavar 22:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    I disagree, its oversaturated (yellow/green) seems unnatural to me --Hubertl 02:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Malaysia_Traffic-signs_Warning-sign-24a.jpg

Malaysia Traffic-signs Warning-sign-24a.jpg

  • Nomination Traffic signs in Malaysia: Warning sign "Merging traffic / Intersection with a minor crossroad" in Kuala Lumpur) --Cccefalon 06:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The traffic sign is well made and sharp, but the background is the most part of the photo and this looks grainy and muddy. --Steindy 09:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you fo reviewing. I know, that there are different opinions about the right choice of DoF, so I would love to hear another opinion. For this photo, I would say, the background is not grainy and muddy, but it is just the bokeh of the lense. In my series of malaysian road signs, I often used this shallow DoF to expose the main object. --Cccefalon 10:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, but something in the trees is odd. –Be..anyone 06:10, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
What exactly do you mean with "something"? Sure, that you dont mean the Bokeh? --Cccefalon 06:15, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Exactly, I didn't know that this effect has a name—BG-1. Smile fasdfdsfoiueire.svgBe..anyone 06:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Good :) It is not a quality issue, it is a quality feature. --Cccefalon 07:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. Yann 10:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Absolutely --Livioandronico2013 18:00, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Some parts of the sky and some further details burnt. Ugly, disturbing bokeh. Longitudal CA (yellow type) all over the background. -- Smial 15:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Udo Jürgens - Der Soloabend 2010 (08).jpg

Udo Jürgens - Der Soloabend 2010 (08).jpg

  • Nomination On the occasion of the death of the great Austrian composer and singer Udo Jürgens on December 21, 2014 some pictures from the Open Air Concert 2010 in the Roman Quarry in St. Margarethen (Austria) --Steindy 22:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Out of focus - slightly blurred. --Kadellar 13:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think that the rating for an available light photo is still sufficient. --Steindy 21:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Kadellar. I expect an FPC that small size to be crisp sharp. --Kreuzschnabel 09:57, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm just too tired to fight against the „so well-intentioned“ comments. I especially Christmas and not feel like it. I wish all my colleagues a Merry Christmas and that under the Christmas tree a package with AGF is. By the way, some above (2014-12-21) are two photos more, you can deselect. --Steindy 13:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Slight overexposure leads to unfavorable colors of the skin, somewhat too strong blur regarding the size. @Kreuzschnabel: This is not FPC. -- Smial 15:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Udo Jürgens - Der Soloabend 2010 (09).jpg

Udo Jürgens - Der Soloabend 2010 (09).jpg

  • Nomination On the occasion of the death of the great Austrian composer and singer Udo Jürgens on December 21, 2014 some pictures from the Open Air Concert 2010 in the Roman Quarry in St. Margarethen (Austria) --Steindy 22:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Dnalor 01 16:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp, unfortunate facial expression, resolution just slightly above 2MP.Just had a short look at the show; Steindy is right: He is looking all the time in this way. --P e z i 20:27, 25 December 2014 (UTC) --P e z i 22:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm just too tired to fight against the „so well-intentioned“ comments. I especially Christmas and not feel like it. I wish all my colleagues a Merry Christmas and that under the Christmas tree a package with AGF is. By the way, some above (2014-12-21) are two photos more, you can deselect. --Steindy 13:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC) – @ P e z i: I can not do anything for that typical facial expression that Udo Jürgens always wore while singing in his concerts. --Steindy 13:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support despite the difficult situation (especially light) during any concerts, its QI for me. You cannot compare it with normal shootings. And the facial expression? This was in fact Udo Jürgens, at this time a 76 year old man. --Hubertl 21:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Udo war Vorbild im Ausdruck für Viele, manche haben es aber übertrieben!! Siehe hier und hier... --Hubertl 22:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Somewhat too blurred regarding the image size, but very good composition and nice colors. -- Smial 15:37, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Udo Jürgens - Der Soloabend 2010 (14).jpg

Udo Jürgens - Der Soloabend 2010 (14).jpg

  • Nomination On the occasion of the death of the great Austrian composer and singer Udo Jürgens on December 21, 2014 some pictures from the Open Air Concert 2010 in the Roman Quarry in St. Margarethen (Austria) --Steindy 22:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 01:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

* Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsharp, very unfortunate facial expression, resolution just slightly above 2MP.Just had a short look at the show; Steindy is right: He is looking all the time in this way. --P e z i 20:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC) --P e z i 22:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support – the only sharp one of this set. Expression is not unbearably bad for an old man singing. --Kreuzschnabel 09:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)Withdrawn since the nominator obviously did not want me to support. Merry Christmas. --Kreuzschnabel 07:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm just too tired to fight against the „so well-intentioned“ comments. I especially Christmas and not feel like it. I wish all my colleagues a Merry Christmas and that under the Christmas tree a package with AGF is. By the way, some above (2014-12-21) are two photos more, you can deselect. --Steindy 13:46, 23 December 2014 (UTC) – @ P e z i: I can not do anything for that typical facial expression that Udo Jürgens always wore while singing in his concerts. --Steindy 13:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Do I get it right that you don’t want me to support? Okay, withdrawn. And don’t forget to buy a large AGF packet for yourself. Not everyone opposing your nominations is nothing but a bad guy wanting to hurt you. --Kreuzschnabel 07:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Answer: Do so as you like. If you do not understand it, then re-read who was meant. By the way, my photos are the only images that show him in his typical bathrobe. Finally, I think that the photo used in many articles is copyright infringement since no release is here and the management of Udo Jürgens basically no images have been released. --Steindy 13:39, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Slight overexposure with clipping on his "bathrobe", sharpness not overwhelming, but acceptable. Again very good composition.-- Smial 15:39, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Dome_of_S.Peter_in_night.jpg

Dome of S.Peter in night.jpg

  • Nomination Dome of S.Peter in the night --Livioandronico2013 11:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    Good but tilted in ccw direction Poco a poco 11:09, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks Diego --Livioandronico2013 11:38, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    The top crop is now too tight Poco a poco 11:39, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    See now Diego --Livioandronico2013 11:50, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 11:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Too many overexposed parts. -Kadellar 16:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good for me. -- Spurzem 12:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Kadellar, and to many jpeg compression artifacts.--Jebulon 18:58, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok for me.--Hubertl 16:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Code 18:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Steenvoorde - la maison du COQ (1664).JPG

Steenvoorde - la maison du COQ (1664).JPG

  • Nomination Immeuble Au Coq Steenvoorde.- 59114 Nord (département français)--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment crop too tight at top Ezarate 14:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Discussion Thank you. I corrected the photo--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 20:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC) crop is ok now but it's the picture is tilted --Ezarate 12:26, 21 December 2014 (UTC) Thank you. I've corrected the inclinaison of picture--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:41, 22 December 2014 (UTC) Symbol support vote.svg Weak support it isn't too sharp but is acceptable Ezarate 14:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality of the sky. --Iifar 19:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info Sorry, northern France the sky is not blue often, I added a little cyan ----PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info 'Insufficient quality of the sky' doesn't mean 'Not a blue sky' but rather that the sky is overexposed. The sky could be correct even with clouds (ex). It is even worse by adding cyan IMO, you should rather try to lower high lights. Gyrostat (talk) 18:32, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

File:London MMB »0K3 choisya ternata.jpg

London MMB »0K3 choisya ternata.jpg

  • Nomination choisya ternata Mattbuck 07:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Decline Not really convinced by the composition, maybe a crop can help but not sure --Christian Ferrer 11:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The blurred foreground is too disturbing. --Hockei 18:45, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Very nice composition. --Code 13:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too blurry foreground. -- Spurzem 11:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The large blurry foreground is very disturbing. --Steindy 13:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Livioandronico2013 10:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

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)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. Yann 10:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unsufficiant lighting, hard shadows, lots of overexposed reflections. Unsuccessful direct flash snapshot with way too high contrast. -- Smial 20:31, 25 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)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 16:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For me its disturbing, but I respect other votes. --Steindy 13:45, 25 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)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. Yann 11:36, 23 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)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. Yann 11:35, 23 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)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok for me --Hubertl 16:47, 24 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)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unnatural perspective. -- Spurzem 22:39, 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: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)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ist es nicht, siehe BGH, Urt. v. 17.12.2010, Az. V ZR 44/10. --Code 18:07, 24 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:Paide kohtuhoone 2014.JPG

Paide kohtuhoone 2014.JPG

  • Nomination: Paide courthouse. Kruusamägi 01:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Review Symbol support vote.svg Support 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)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Noise level acceptable, sharpness ok. No need to rise the standards for a quality image until only cameras and lenses worth thousands of bucks are possible. -- Smial 14:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Same arguments as Smial. --Steindy 23:05, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Livioandronico2013 20:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Livioandronico2013 20:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Jacobaea maritima20140629 52.jpg

Jacobaea maritima20140629 52.jpg

  • Nomination Inflorescences of Jacobaea maritima. --Bff 14:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion 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)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Livioandronico2013 10:04, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Laukkasarenkatu.jpg

Laukkasarenkatu.jpg

  • Nomination Laukkasarenkatu, Helsinki. --Óðinn 16:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Promotion 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)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Crop is better now (but the shadow is still a little bit disturbing), so it's good for QI.--XRay 10:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Livioandronico2013 10:03, 26 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)
  • Promotion 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)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Livioandronico2013 10:02, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Zeitplan (15 Tage nach Nominierung)

Do 18 Dez. → Fr 26 Dez.
Fr 19 Dez. → Sa 27 Dez.
Sa 20 Dez. → So 28 Dez.
So 21 Dez. → Mo 29 Dez.
Mo 22 Dez. → Di 30 Dez.
Di 23 Dez. → Mi 31 Dez.
Mi 24 Dez. → Do 01 Jan.
Do 25 Dez. → Fr 02 Jan.
Fr 26 Dez. → Sa 03 Jan.