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 März 2015, 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]] 14:49, 5 März 2015 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.
The new rule is effective now. Please nominate only a maximum of 5 images per day. [1]

March 5, 2015

March 4, 2015

March 3, 2015

March 2, 2015

March 1, 2015

February 28, 2015

February 27, 2015

February 26, 2015

February 25, 2015

February 24, 2015

February 23, 2015

February 22, 2015

February 20, 2015

February 16, 2015

Consensual review

Rules

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

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


Consensual Review

File:St Casimir Church Interior 1, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg

St Casimir Church Interior 1, Vilnius, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg

  • Nomination St. Casimir Church main altar. Vilnius, Lithuania. (by Diliff) --Pofka 08:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 15:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    Is it really QI? Please look at the rear vaults and at the chandeliers. They are very distorted. And the dome is too bright. -- Spurzem 23:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Its always bright inside of this church. The details quality is unquestionable for me. Just look at the altar and all the frescoes. -- Pofka (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2014-12-18_Facade_details_at_Neue_Burg,_Vienna_-hu-_6253.jpg

2014-12-18 Facade details at Neue Burg, Vienna -hu- 6253.jpg

  • Nomination Facade details of the neue Burg, Vienna --Hubertl 08:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 08:38, 04 March 2015 (UTC)
    I disagree Too dark, I'll support if fixed --Moroder 12:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC) * ✓ Done Not too much, otherwise I would lose textures, especially in the face, it was the 18th of December, late afternoon.. But thx for your review, Wolfgang! --Hubertl 15:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Kaunas Town Hall 1, Kaunas, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg

Kaunas Town Hall 1, Kaunas, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg

  • Nomination Kaunas Town Hall in Kaunas, Lithuania. (by Diliff) --Pofka 09:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Cccefalon 06:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    I’d like to discuss this. First, the distortion is too much for me, the topmost store of the tower appears slanted to the back. Second, the entire image looks oversharpened to me (white linings around details). As yet a Symbol oppose vote.svg weak oppose for the oversharpening. --Kreuzschnabel 08:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Santiagobernabeupanoramav5.JPG

Santiagobernabeupanoramav5.JPG

  • Nomination Santiago Bernabéu Stadium.--لا روسا 22:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --El Grafo 09:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    I don't like the crops, specially that of the field. --Kadellar 17:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The photo itself has a good quality, there is no way to have the field completely by a person, but via photo aerial.--لا روسا 05:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Royal Naval College, Greenwich 00 (2).JPG

Royal Naval College, Greenwich 00 (2).JPG

  • Nomination Royal Naval College, Greenwich.--لا روسا 09:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)(UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It needs perspective and tilt correction, not very detailed for a 3 Mpix image, maybe due to low jpeg quality (or the small sensor). --C messier 18:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done @C messier:.--لا روسا 22:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg weak oppose Sorry, IMHO it is too unsharp for its size. --C messier 14:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, could you let it to another one to review it as you mentioned that weak oppose.--لا روسا 04:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Royal Naval College, Greenwich 00 (1).JPG

Royal Naval College, Greenwich 00 (1).JPG

  • Nomination Royal Naval College, Greenwich.--لا روسا 09:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)(UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It needs perspective and tilt correction, not very detailed for a 3 Mpix image, maybe due to low jpeg quality (or the small sensor). --C messier 18:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done @C messier:.--لا روسا 21:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg weak oppose Sorry, IMHO it is too unsharp for its size. --C messier 14:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, could you let it to another one to review it as you mentioned that weak oppose.--لا روسا 04:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Malleus_(5_von_16).jpg

Malleus (5 von 16).jpg

  • Nomination Malleus beim Feel Festival 2014 in Berlin --Pistenwolf 08:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --C messier 16:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
    Unnecesary vignetting, unnatural colours, looks like ana "artistic" filter. Slight CA. --Kadellar 17:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

File:20140312_Cologne_ESC_Germany_0547.jpg

20140312 Cologne ESC Germany 0547.jpg

  • Nomination 'Eurovision Song Contest 2014 - Unser Song für Dänemark': 'Unheilig'. By User:MarkusFelix --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 03:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Camera tilted (on purpose, obviously, but it doesn't work for me), drumset cut in half, snowflake (?) right in front of the singer's eye. --El Grafo 17:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    Good quality. --Kadellar 17:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Head of Publius Aelius Traianus Hadrianus in Museo Nazionale Romano.jpg

Head of Publius Aelius Traianus Hadrianus in Museo Nazionale Romano.jpg

  • Nomination Head of Hadrian --Livioandronico2013 09:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeInsufficient description, bad categorization, again and always. Sorry.--Jebulon 11:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done as always Jebulon --Livioandronico2013 13:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    Bad categorization and description shouldn´t be a reason for declining. --Hubertl 13:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    I was stuck without warning, hello to all Face-crying.svg

. --LivioAndronico 14:11, 3 March 2015 (UTC Hubertl What is a QI ? See point 3 in Images requirements of QIC guidelines, thanks.--Jebulon 22:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Description could be better but it is enough for me. I see no reason to decline. -- Spurzem 23:13, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Citadel of Qaitbay 024.JPG

Citadel of Qaitbay 024.JPG

  • Nomination Citadel of Qaitbay, Egypt.--لا روسا 22:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Slightly inclined to the right. Description and categories are missing. --Zcebeci 11:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • sorry, bad categorization and description shouldn´t be a reason for declining. Already there was an arabic description and category of Cultural heritage monuments in Egypt 2014, because this photo was a part of Wiki love monuments in Egypt. Now, i add en and es description also.--لا روسا 15:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The building is leaning to the right. The crop ist too tight at the top and on the right side. The verticals are not rectilinear. Too much space at the bottom as well. JPEG quality isn't as good as it should be, lots of artefacts. Sorry, nice weather and nice subject but not a QI. --Code 06:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. The level of detail might barely be acceptable though it’s really not good, but the tight crop and the perspective issues kill it for me. --Kreuzschnabel 06:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose too much inclined --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 22:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Moosburg Schloss Tigring 20022015 7674.jpg

Moosburg Schloss Tigring 20022015 7674.jpg

  • Nomination Castle Tigring, Moosburg, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 18:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A bit of sharpening wouldn't go amiss. Mattbuck 21:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's improvable. Sharpness and reducing the little overexposure. --Hockei 20:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Thanks for your review. Reworked version uploaded. --Johann Jaritz 03:30, 01 March 2015 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The colours and the light looks fine to me now. The sharpening is too much IMO. Look at the trees on the left side for example. There you can see the new noise too. --Hockei 12:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality anyway. --Palauenc05 21:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't agree. This version cannot be a QI IMO. I wrote what I think above. Also the sky is not blue anymore. --Hockei 18:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpening artifacts visible in every fine detail. Look at the windows, or the framework structure on the right – every edge is doubled by artifact lines. Even the blurred background has been tried to sharpen. Yuk. --Kreuzschnabel 06:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overprocessed, oversharpened. --Kadellar 17:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nathalie's castel? Good quality--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 22:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Poertschach Werzer-Bad 01032015 0220.jpg

Poertschach Werzer-Bad 01032015 0220.jpg

  • Nomination Werzer bath establishment, Poertschach, Carinthia, Austria --Johann Jaritz 17:38, 01 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion Symbol support vote.svg Support QI -- Spurzem 20:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
    Not so fast. There is a problem with a magenta CA on the left (see the note). Please first fix that, before the promotion. --Halavar 21:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC) ✓ Done Thank you for your review. Reworked version uploaded. --Johann Jaritz 02:36, 02 March 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good now. --Halavar 23:45, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 10:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --C messier 09:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Telšiai Cathedral Exterior, Telšiai, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg

Telšiai Cathedral Exterior, Telšiai, Lithuania - Diliff.jpg

  • Nomination Telšiai Cathedral in Telšiai, Lithuania. (by Diliff) --Pofka 11:41, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very good detail as usual but the distortion from straightening the verticals is a bit too much for me. Some posterization in the clouds right of the tower. Let’s hear some more opinions. --Kreuzschnabel 09:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It's a borderline case for me distortion-wise – I've seen much, much worse. Clouds look OK to me. I'm not entirely convinced that the "natural framing" (branches) at the left side really work in this case. I'd really like to hear other opinions as well. --El Grafo (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Maybe less perspective correction would look more natural, but good quality. --Kadellar 17:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

File:ČSD Class (IMG 8750).JPG

ČSD Class (IMG 8750).JPG

  • Nomination A ČSD Class 451 (ČSD Class 451 045/046) departs from Zábřeh na Moravě station (Czech Republic). --Daniel Holý CZ 14:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion QI -- Spurzem 15:33, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting question.svg Question Maybe I am making a fool of myself but is this a Wikimedian’s work? --Kreuzschnabel 08:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I am also in doubts. For me, it looks that the nominating user Daniel Holý CZ is uploading the work of some people with OTRS. However, this is not entitling the photos to participate in QIC. If this turns out to be the case, then there are some QI that have to be delisted. Example: The photo's author is Karel Furiš, but this [2] photos author is Viktor Zerzán. --Cccefalon 08:40, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice picture and interesting object, but perspective correction is needed --Shansov.net 21:26, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Tagus in Toledo002.jpg

Tagus in Toledo002.jpg

  • Nomination Tagus River in Toledo.--لا روسا 00:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Shadow parts need brightening. Maybe you can sharpen it a bit too. --Hockei 18:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Hard to say. The dark parts are better now. But I'm not quite convinced about the sharpness. I think you have used unsharp masking or sharpening only edges too strong. With this picture I cannot make it better. Sorry --Hockei 14:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    @Hockei: review it now.--لا روسا 11:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
    I really don't know. Maybe other people can review it. --Hockei 12:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No fine detail, very unsharp for a 3 Mpix image IMHO. --C messier 16:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed. About 20% of the pixels are clipping in blue and green channels, still 5% in red channel. Leads to wrong colors in the sky. Not fixable. --Smial 10:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Smial In the original version sky looks better. --C messier 13:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Only gradual. I've looked at the first version and found the same color issues, only the area with clipping is smaller. -- Smial 15:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

File:The Temple of Hercules010.JPG

The Temple of Hercules010.JPG

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

Not done. The top of the columns is leaning in. It's not difficult, but you need a special software, like the freely available GIMP. According to Image guidelines "Images of architecture should usually be rectilinear. Perspective distortion should either have a purpose or be insignificant". In this case the camera isn't angled enough for the perspective not to be corrected (for a purpose) nor the disturtion is insignificant (it is noticable in the thumbnail). I gave it a try and it looked really nice. --C messier 14:09, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@لا روسا: I have to apologize. For now it is indeed too distorted. -- Spurzem 14:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
What side is the right one? Is it wrong way now or before? -- Spurzem 15:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
I have taken 2 photos from its two sides, one is this from the back (original one without any perspective) and the other is that from the front.--لا روسا 20:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose  Not done --C messier 15:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Jerash Oval Plaza 003.JPG

Jerash Oval Plaza 003.JPG

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

Symbol support vote.svg Support --MB-one 18:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Van_Hool_A308_M3021_Demi-Lieue_STAR_-_Florian_Fèvre.JPG

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

  • Nomination Bus in Roanne --Billy69150 07:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg Support You didn't lose your subject this time (although once again, simplifying these with tighter crops will help) --Daniel Case 06:16, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    Seems to have a fair amount of perspective distortion, and brightness isn't great. --Mattbuck 22:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support I don't specially like the photo but I see no apparent issues. Kvardek du 18:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

File:Poma_2000_Hôtel_de_Ville_-_Florian_FEVRE.jpg

Poma 2000 Hôtel de Ville - Florian FEVRE.jpg

  • Nomination Poma in Laon --Billy69150 08:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn Below minimum size requirement. --Hubertl 13:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done --Billy69150 15:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment there are some Problems (CA, Fringe, perspective distortions), third opinion appreciated, see annotations.--Hubertl 15:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, mainly because of the composition. It is not clear what the (main) subject of this image is. I'd guess it's the train station and the people mover? In that case, there are way too much other things included in the image that distract from the subject. Too much sky. It's generally not a good idea to put the horizon at the vertical center of the frame (unless you have a very good reason to do so). Is the (half) house on the right edge of the frame really necessary? Fortunately, all this might be fixable with a careful, tighter crop. --El Grafo (talk) 11:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - CA, low JPEG quality. Mattbuck 22:47, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Mattbuck. --Kadellar 16:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination --Billy69150 20:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Lisboa January 2015-46a.jpg

Lisboa January 2015-46a.jpg

  • Nomination Monument to the Portuguese discoveries (silhouette), Lisboa, Portugal -- Alvesgaspar 12:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't understand why you nominate the picture again. Nothing changed since last time. The picture may be nice from an artistic point of view but the light situation is still not sufficient for QI. Are you hoping for different reviewers this time? --Code 20:31, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • No, I'm hoping for a wiser attitude from the old ones. Alvesgaspar 16:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • So you think that we were just not wise enough to review your picture properly? Don't you think that this is a quite disrespectful attitude? --Code 08:41, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes and no. Everybody makes mistakes and correcting them adds to the respect the others have on us. Alvesgaspar 12:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • To say that declining your nomination was a mistake doesn't make me respect you more. I would respect you if you could accept that not every picture you nominate has to be a QI in the eyes of others. It probably doesn't bother you but it makes me very sad what you're doing here. --Code 17:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. as the unvailing nomination a few days ago. --Hubertl 14:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't understand why and nobody seems to be able to explain. Thus sent to CR (again), Alvesgaspar 14:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Same reason as last time. Nothing changed. Re-nominating after a decline without changing anything is disrespectful in my eyes (and probably against the rules). --Code 07:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Let me quote the reason of last time: Sorry, bad light situation. Monument is too dark. Yes, it is too dark, as in most contre-jour photographs, many of them QI or FP. In some cases, including the present one, contrast is enhanced in order to obtain the desired effect (see original here) For me to respect a technical review it ought to be intelectually respectable, which is obviously not the case here. Alvesgaspar 08:59, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • The description says "Monumento to the Portuguese Discoveries (Padrão dos Descobrimentos), Lisboa, Portugal.". Unfortunately I don't see any monument on this picture. I see blue areas and black areas. That's it. And I don't see which value the picture should have regarding the project scope. As I already said this picture may be nice from an artistic point of view. But that's not what we ask for in QI. Additionally I somehow don't really understand the last sentence of your last comment, but I hope you didn't want to call me stupid. --Code 09:21, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You certainly do not represent the community when you state but that's not what we ask for in QI (bold added), especially knowing that there are several - probably hundreds of - silhouette and contre-jour quality images in Commons (please see here and here). As for not seing which value the picture should have regarding the project scope, that is certainly a limitation of your own eyes, probably based on a short-sighted idea of what the project scope really is. Alvesgaspar 14:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • First: I never said that I represented the community. Second: None of these pictures contains as little information as the one we're talking about in this case. Third: The fact that other (different) pictures were promoted doesn't give you any entitlement to have this one promoted, too. For me, this discussion is over at this point. This is getting too personal. I want no quarrel with you and I like most of your pictures. Let's see what the others think about your nomination. --Code 14:35, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As a normal picture, obviously this wouldn't be QI as the subject is too dark. As a silhouette as intended, this doesn't work for me either. It's kinda stuck in between being a silhouette and an under-exposed picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KTC (talk • contribs) 14:57, 27 February 2015‎ (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - As before, I think this is QI, the composition is clearly intentional. However I do think that renominating it so soon is bad form. Mattbuck 22:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 07:56, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Milseburg 12:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support as for mattbuck. -- Smial 10:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Subject is too dark --Shansov.net 21:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as my first vote--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 15:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Can't we take silhouette pictures now? --Kadellar 16:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

  • Nomination Saint Casimir Church in Vilnius, Lithuania. (by Diliff) --Pofka 13:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The ghosts behind the red car don't disturb me, but a little bit denoising of the sky would be fine. --Code 08:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support seems ok to me. Mattbuck 22:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question @Mattbuck: Why do you think that the usual habits do not apply here? --Code 13:07, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I interpreted your comment as a suggestion of improvement, not of "this is not yet QI". Mattbuck 22:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Not opposing any longer. Doesn't seem as if anybody was interested in improving the quality of this picture. --Code 07:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Christian Ferrer 07:58, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK to me. --Johann Jaritz 03:59, 03 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --C messier 09:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

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

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

  • Nomination Location: The Natuurterrein Famberhorst. (Alnus). Elzentak with kittens above frozen lake.
    Famberhorst 05:46, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice, good quality. --Johann Jaritz 07:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but it is too noisy for me and somehow unclear. --Hockei 18:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Hockei --MB-one 17:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --C messier 09:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2015_Wieża_widokowa_na_Borówkowej_01.jpg

2015 Wieża widokowa na Borówkowej 01.jpg

✓ Done--Jacek Halicki 19:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry for being pedantic here, but it's not done. Roof is still sliding backwards, there are still two different perspectives in one image. Details here. --El Grafo 10:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 22:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose see El Grafo --Dirtsc 11:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Übertriebene Korrektur der Perspektive. -- Spurzem 13:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me --Halavar 18:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 21:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2015_Wieża_widokowa_na_Borówkowej_02.jpg

2015 Wieża widokowa na Borówkowej 02.jpg

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

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

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry for being pedantic here, but it's not done. Roof is still sliding backwards, there are still two different perspectives in one image. Details here. --El Grafo 10:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose see El Grafo --Dirtsc 11:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Schade, aber das Dach wirkt hier wie bei den folgenden Bildern unnatürlich oder unwirklich. -- Spurzem 13:06, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --C messier 09:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

File:2015_Wieża_widokowa_na_Borówkowej_04.jpg

2015 Wieża widokowa na Borówkowej 04.jpg

  • Nomination Lookout tower on Borówkowa 4 --Jacek Halicki 09:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 10:15, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective overcorrection, see FPC nomination for details --El Grafo 16:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done--Jacek Halicki 18:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry for being pedantic here, but it's not done. Roof is still sliding backwards, there are still two different perspectives in one image. Details here. --El Grafo 10:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 12:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Σπάρτακος 13:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bitte nichts für ungut. Aber die übertriebene Korrektur der Perspektive zerstört den Eindruck der Wirklichkeit. -- Spurzem 20:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose see El Grafo and Spurzem --Dirtsc 11:28, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 21:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Uro_boy.jpg

Uro boy.jpg

  • Nomination Boy from the Uro Islands, Peru. -- Christopher Crouzet 12:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice portrait and composition, sharp face - QI for me; just a question: What about personality rights warning for this boy? -- Achim Raschka 14:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose due to overexposure on the jumper, I'd also say the image seems a bit blue. --Mattbuck 16:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice scene but overexposed --Kreuzschnabel 07:21, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose overexposed --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good image and suitable exposure, otherwise his face would be too dark --Shansov.net 14:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IBTD. In a quality image, contrast should be dealt with skilfully instead of overexposing most of the pic IMHO. There are several ways of brightening a shady face. --Kreuzschnabel 09:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good image and propper exposure--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 05:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support GQ for me. --Palauenc05 17:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. There are clipping areas, but in this case not disturbing, as colors are not really distorted and look natural. -- Smial 10:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support To me this looks like one of those days where the sun is so unforgivingly harsh and bright your eyes seem to hurt if you don't wear sunglasses. Hence, exposing to the bright side a bit actually makes sense to me. --El Grafo 15:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

File:London MMB »065 River Thames.jpg

London MMB »065 River Thames.jpg

  • Nomination River Thames. Mattbuck 21:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. River Thames? The background is blurrisch, only on part is a kind of acceptable sharp. --Hubertl 10:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Other opinions? --Mattbuck 22:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support yes, I see nothing blurred nor unsharp, just a little acceptable noise --Christian Ferrer 20:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Out of date clock icon 2.svg Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Kreuzschnabel 06:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

File:Jason_Evans_WiR_at_Llyfrgell_Genedlaethol_National_Library_of_Wales_03.JPG

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

  • Nomination Dr Dafydd Tudur receiving National Library of Wales at Aberystwyth. By User:Llywelyn2000 --Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 17:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The portrait is not perfectly sharp, however I think it can pass to QI after applying perspective correction for the background building. --Cccefalon 09:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support I'm not sure that's necessary or even desirable. I think the perspective forms part of the composition.Mattbuck 22:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Some CA and some color noise in the jacket, perhaps even moirée. I would like to see some more votes, so send to CR instead of decline. -- Smial 14:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I absolutely agree Mattbuck. Perspective correction neither necessary nor wanted. DerFussi 07:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?

File:Heuliez_GX_327_n°746_Réseau_Mistral_Mourillon_-_Florian_Fèvre.JPG

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

  • Nomination Bus in Toulon --Billy69150 12:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Zcebeci 15:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I disagree, its tilted clockwise. Please repair. --Hubertl 18:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC) *
  • ✓ Done --Billy69150 21:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good Quality now.--Hubertl 07:28, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Some colours seem quite dull to me, and I don't really like the contrast (white-blue sky vs darker sections). --TwoWings 15:52, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bad light : disturbing shadow --Christian Ferrer 20:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support, but Billy69150, this needs a tighter crop at the top. Mattbuck 22:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Christian Ferrer --El Grafo 17:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This shadow does not seem me disturbing and I find the photo very nice. Kvardek du 19:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good quality--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 11:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support, as Mattbuck - DerFussi 07:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --C messier 09:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Zeitplan (15 Tage nach Nominierung)

Mi 25 Feb. → Do 05 Mär.
Do 26 Feb. → Fr 06 Mär.
Fr 27 Feb. → Sa 07 Mär.
Sa 28 Feb. → So 08 Mär.
So 01 Mär. → Mo 09 Mär.
Mo 02 Mär. → Di 10 Mär.
Di 03 Mär. → Mi 11 Mär.
Mi 04 Mär. → Do 12 Mär.
Do 05 Mär. → Fr 13 Mär.