Commons:Candidatas a imágenes de calidad

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Quality images candidates and the translation is 77% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Quality images candidates and have to be approved by a translation administrator.

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

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

Objetivo

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

Directrices

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

Para los nominadores

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

Requisitos de las imágenes
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the Image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.


Creator

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.

Requisitos técnicos

Criterios más detallados están disponibles en Directrices de imágenes.

Resolución

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

(No aplicable a las imágenes SVG)

Calidad de las Imágenes

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

Composición e iluminación

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

Valor

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

Cómo nominar

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

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

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

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

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

Nota: Hay un artilugio que acelera las nominaciones. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the Image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.


Number of nominations

Carefully select your best images to nominate. No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.


Evaluación de las imágenes

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

Cómo revisar

How to update the status

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

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

to

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

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

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

to

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

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

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


Período de gracia y promoción

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

Cómo ejecutar una decisión

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

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

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

Imágenes no asignadas (recuadro azul)

Las imágenes nominadas que no han sido promovidas ni declinadas, o acabaron en consenso (hubo igual número de oposiciones y apoyos) tras 8 días en esta página deberían ser borradas de esta página sin promoción, archivadas en Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives mayo 2015 y añadirle a la imagen la Category:Unassessed QI candidates.

Proceso de revisión de consenso

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

Cómo preguntar por la revisión de consenso

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

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

Revisión de las reglas de consenso

Ver Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Actualización de la página: purge this page's cache


Contents

Nominations

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures are only working on this page if you have Javascript enabled. If you do not have Javascript enabled please manually sign with

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 00:39, 5 mayo 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.

May 5, 2015

May 4, 2015

May 3, 2015

May 2, 2015

May 1, 2015

April 30, 2015

April 29, 2015

April 28, 2015

April 27, 2015

April 26, 2015

April 25, 2015

April 24, 2015

April 23, 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:Les haras de Canny-sur-Thérain.jpg

Les haras de Canny-sur-Thérain.jpg

File:Canny-sur-Thérain Chapelle Saint Paterne et cimetière.jpg

Canny-sur-Thérain Chapelle Saint Paterne et cimetière.jpg

File:Hıdırlık Tower 02.jpg

Hıdırlık Tower 02.jpg

  • Nomination Hıdırlık Tower, Antalya, Turkey--Bgag 21:17, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 21:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too soft imo. --Kadellar 22:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Bad mood,Kadellar? I´m just asking without obligation. --Hubertl 23:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Can't I oppose? If we promote every picture, we don't need nominations, just include the template. I think it was harder to get a QI two years ago. --Kadellar 00:21, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no QI --Denkmalhelfer 07:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC) – Would you kindly explain why it is no QI? -- Spurzem 11:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. Good composition, good sharpness, good colors. Perhaps a little bit too bright. -- Spurzem 11:28, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overall unsharpness. Alvesgaspar 13:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough. --Palauenc05 05:32, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 09:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 10:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Colza_en_la_cuenca_del_Torote_-_01.jpg

Colza en la cuenca del Torote - 01.jpg

  • Nomination Rapeseed in the Torote basin, in Jarama and Henares basin, Communty of Madrid, Spain. --Kadellar 08:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Johann Jaritz 11:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry The background is blurred, and nothing is sharp in the left side.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 22:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hahaha nice revenge. Buy a better camera and shoot RAW and you won't have any more jpeg artifacts. This is QI, not Flickr. --Kadellar 00:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    11mm on a 60D, at f7.1, gives an hyperfocal of 0.90 m (where it is focused), so everything from 45 cm to infinite is in focus, that should be enough. --Kadellar 02:29, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentPlease, why would it be sweet revenge? I want to believe that on a 11mm 60D at F7.1 gives a hyperfocal 0.90 m, but at 100 ISO, the photo should be surely more detail ... Check also the sky it seems overexposed... like what a good Canon EOS 60D can give poor pictures as that an Instamatic. A liottle precision: on a DMC-TZ55 LUMIX the High Sensitivity CMOS sensor is 16 megapixels on a Canon EOS 60D is 18 MP (There is no big differences). For information submitted in QI my pictures are corrected with Raw Therapiee 02.04.74. No hard feelings, in future I would submit my photos taken with my Sony α NEX-F3. Smile--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 08:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose ahhahaha Kadellar is infinite blurred,is simple and easy. Also on flicrk there bad images. --Livioandronico2013 07:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Very nice but unsharp. A better exposure solution, maybe? Alvesgaspar 13:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 01:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Mauritius_Intercontinental-Mauritius_Resort-Balaclava-Fort-01.jpg

Mauritius Intercontinental-Mauritius Resort-Balaclava-Fort-01.jpg

  • Nomination mauritius: Lobby of InterContinental Mauritius Resort Balaclava Fort --Cccefalon 00:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 01:09, 2 May 2015
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry disagree, partly too dark --Denkmalhelfer 12:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)(UTC)
    – Incredible! -- Spurzem 11:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Kadellar 00:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 09:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 11:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Good enough Alvesgaspar 13:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 01:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Weißstorch im Anflug auf Nest (3).jpg

Weißstorch im Anflug auf Nest (3).jpg

  • Nomination White storks in Lower Saxony. --Hydro 07:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMO too bright. Details missing.--XRay 08:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose see Xray and not sharp --Denkmalhelfer 12:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is sharp. Good composition. Overexposed parts good enough for QI. --Kadellar 00:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough imo. Alvesgaspar 13:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 01:56, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Waterfall_of_Cavaterra_in_Nepi_-_end.jpg

Waterfall of Cavaterra in Nepi - end.jpg

  • Nomination Waterfall of Cavaterra in Nepi - end --Livioandronico2013 06:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 06:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but some areas are clearly overexposed, not a QI to me --Poco a poco 07:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose same as poco --Denkmalhelfer 07:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A very nice picture but I have to agree with the opposers. Alvesgaspar 13:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 01:55, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Wieden_-_filharmonia.JPG

Wieden - filharmonia.JPG

  • Nomination Musikverein --Albertus teolog 22:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Johann Jaritz 10:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tight crop imo. CA too. --Kadellar 00:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 08:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 08:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Crop too tight, image too grainy and unsharp. The camera is to blame, I suppose. Alvesgaspar 13:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 01:54, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Canny-sur-Thérain (5).jpg

Canny-sur-Thérain (5).jpg

  • Nomination Espaces verts et parcs à Canny-sur-Thérain . PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 09:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Strong compression, no detail. --Kadellar 09:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree --Hubertl 14:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose see Hubertl --Denkmalhelfer 12:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
     ??? My vote was disagreeing the opposiong from Kandellar. --Hubertl 19:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you Hubert1 this proves that some photographers do not look the proposed images.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The stairs of the slide are a bit disturbing but this is not worth to be mentioned. -- Spurzem 21:24, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too soft, visible artifacts on darker area. Alvesgaspar 14:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 06:52, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Kłodzko,_klasztor_klarysek,_07.jpg

Kłodzko, klasztor klarysek, 07.jpg

  • Nomination Saints George and Adalbert church in Kłodzko --Jacek Halicki 08:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Johann Jaritz 09:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose disagree, strong shadow and noisy. --Denkmalhelfer 10:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support there are neither strong shadows nor too much noise for QI --Hubertl 14:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Neither too strong shadow nor any noise. Another hilarous oppose. --Cccefalon 00:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 10:39, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Wiener Rathaus 2007 Detail b.jpg

Wiener Rathaus 2007 Detail b.jpg

  • Nomination Rathaus, Vienna --Tsui 22:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry incline and partly not sharp --Denkmalhelfer 10:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC) – This vote is unintelligible for me and should in my opinion not be allowed. -- Spurzem 16:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Perspective distortions from this position are ok, the main subject, the figure is completely sharp.--Hubertl 15:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral perspective distortions? .--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I had decided to take not part here any longer. But if I see diverse votes I can not keep to myself. The composition of this image is very good. Where will you have perspective corrections? -- Spurzem 13:43, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Just curious: Can someone point me to an image of a similar subject (relatively close-up of a statue in front of a corresponding and several meters high part of the building's façade it is part of, seen from below, from ground, respectively a visitors, level) that is not "distorted"? Where the statue does not get unnaturally distorted, when correcting the buildings lines. -Tsui (talk) 13:24, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't know why this troll is doing reviews, but I already pointed out some days ago to him, that total perspective correction is not asked in QI for photos that are taken from a very close distance. Also, I would be very happy, if all photos here would have this level of sharpness --Cccefalon 23:26, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 10:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Münster,_Westdeutsche_Lotterie_--_2015_--_5720.jpg

Münster, Westdeutsche Lotterie -- 2015 -- 5720.jpg

  • Nomination Office building of the Westdeutsche Lotterie in Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 16:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Bold perspective, but good quality for me.--Famberhorst 16:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not for me, sorry, because of bold perspective... Needs a debate, IMO.--Jebulon 20:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose sorry, incline no QI --Denkmalhelfer 10:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, perspective. --Code 18:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective distortions too bad.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 06:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Erythronium tuolumnense White Beauty. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 02.jpg

Erythronium tuolumnense White Beauty. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 02.jpg

  • Nomination Tuolumnense Erythronium White Beauty. Location, Garden Tuinreservaat Jonker Valley.
    Famberhorst 04:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 07:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm afraid the white balance is wrong (green cast). Maybe should we discuss...--Jebulon 20:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Famberhorst can you check? thanks --Livioandronico2013 08:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Answer: the greenish drawing in the flour should be. That is the charm of this cultivar. See the two other pictures (below).--Famberhorst 15:36, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose looks green and partly not sharp --Denkmalhelfer 10:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I see no lack! -- Spurzem 21:27, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support WB ok imo. It just could be enhanced be cropping 10px tighter on the right side to get rid of the wedge shaped white in the upper part. But anyhow QI. --Cccefalon 00:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me --Isiwal 08:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 10:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Bratyslawa_Dom_u_Dobrego_Pasterza.JPG

Bratyslawa Dom u Dobrego Pasterza.JPG

  • Nomination House of the Good Shepherd --Albertus teolog 22:26, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hubertl 07:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too soft in focus, shallow DoF, and some CA. Lets discuss. -- Slaunger 19:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose left part (stairs) very dark and noisy --Denkmalhelfer 10:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:47, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Slaunger --DKrieger 20:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 00:05, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Mosquito_(Tipula_Maxima),_jardín_del_molino,_Sierra_de_San_Felipe,_Setúbal,_Portugal,_2012-05-11,_DD_01.JPG

Mosquito (Tipula Maxima), jardín del molino, Sierra de San Felipe, Setúbal, Portugal, 2012-05-11, DD 01.JPG

  • Nomination Mosquito (Tipula maxima), mill garden, Sierra of Saint Philip, Setubal, Portugal --Poco a poco 22:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think this is a crane fly, not a mosquito.--Charlesjsharp 09:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    Note:Crane flies belong to the Tipulidae familie, also the Tipula Maxima, are you fine if I rename to "Tipúlidos (Tipula maxima)"? Poco a poco 15:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Supportlooks fine. --Denkmalhelfer 10:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, renaming won't help; this not Tipula maxima. --Charlesjsharp 10:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 16:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:2014_Kłodzko,_kościół_Wniebowzięcia_NMP_21.jpg

2014 Kłodzko, kościół Wniebowzięcia NMP 21.jpg

  • Nomination Church of the Assumption in Kłodzko 1 --Jacek Halicki 08:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. Ciekawa kompozycja. --Albertus teolog 14:54, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose it is too drak for me --Denkmalhelfer 12:46, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 16:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 23:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Monumento_a_Jaime_I_El_Conquistador,_Valencia,_España,_2014-06-29,_DD_11.JPG

Monumento a Jaime I El Conquistador, Valencia, España, 2014-06-29, DD 11.JPG

  • Nomination Monument to James I the Conqueror, Valencia, Spain --Poco a poco 17:13, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment this picture seems stretched in two different directions. This result can´t be the original perspective. See notes.--Hubertl 18:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, the new version does´nt convince me really. See notes. Third opinion appreciated. --Hubertl 22:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 17:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Edersee 01.jpg

Edersee 01.jpg

  • Nomination Edersee with Castle Waldeck in the background --Derzno 10:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Es fehlt die englische Beschreibung auf der Bildseite. Die deutsche verstehe ich nicht, da kein Staudamm zu sehen ist. --Milseburg 14:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Added missing information in english and changed german text either --Derzno 16:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support o.K. for me now. --Milseburg 11:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose disagree, blow out ship and not sharp at all --Denkmalhelfer 12:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good for QI --Hubertl 17:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 18:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good quality .--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 10:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Little_grebe_(Tachybaptus_ruficollis).jpg

Little grebe (Tachybaptus ruficollis).jpg

  • Nomination Little grebe (Tachybaptus ruficollis), WWT London Wetland Centre, Barnes --Charlesjsharp 10:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not QI for me, but "discuss" (others can opine different and it's a good picture): notable overexposed area (at the start of the peak next to the eye) is disturbing. --Lmbuga 16:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Have reduced over-exposure. --Charlesjsharp 08:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support looks fine for me --Denkmalhelfer 12:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok for me. --Kadellar 01:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Kadellar 01:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Tere schoonheid van de Camellia × williamsii 'Jury's Yellow' bloem. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonker vallei 05.jpg

Tere schoonheid van de Camellia × williamsii 'Jury's Yellow' bloem. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonker vallei 05.jpg

  • Nomination Delicate beauty of the Camellia × williamsii 'Jury's Yellow' flower. Location. Garden sanctuary JonkerValley.
    Famberhorst 15:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. Even when the background is pretty dark, But the subject is the rosa. --Hubertl 16:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose... which is really too dark too (for my taste). I ask for a discussion, please.--Jebulon 16:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)...which is a camelia, not a rosa...--Jebulon 16:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes,sure...is a few dark but good for QI in my opinion --Livioandronico2013 20:21, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Supportlooks good. --Denkmalhelfer 12:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Fine, but underexposed. Should be brightened. --Kadellar 01:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Supportlooks good.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 08:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 10:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Aqueduct of Aspendos 03.jpg

Aqueduct of Aspendos 03.jpg

  • Nomination Roman aqueduct of Aspendos, Turkey --Bgag 15:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose inclined, blown out sky sorry no QI --Denkmalhelfer 15:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree. There is nothing blown out. --Hubertl 16:35, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nothing blown out. Please learn, how to read a histogram, before you insert wrong allegations. Also, for photos of architectural entities, which are taken from an extreme near view, a total perspective correction is not asked in QIC. --Cccefalon 00:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Sehr gutes Bild. Die stürzenden Linien wirken gut. Und wenn ich unmittelbar vor einem Bauwerk steil hochschaue, habe ich einen ähnlichen Eindruck. Für die Kritik habe ich kein Verständnis. -- Spurzem 08:10, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sehr schöne stürzende Linien --Ralf Roletschek 18:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 10:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Webysther_20150428110918_-_Edifícios_Terraço_Itália_e_Copan.jpg

Webysther 20150428110918 - Edifícios Terraço Itália e Copan.jpg

  • Nomination Edifícios Terraço Itália e Copan respectivamente. --Webysther 13:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose partly to light, no details and sky not in golden cut by 1/3, sorry --Denkmalhelfer 15:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Golden cut isn't necessary. Just crop the sky. I would choose 16:9. Then I'll give a pro. --Hockei 16:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done --Webysther 01:31, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality with the different ratio. --Cccefalon 02:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hockei 05:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 07:47, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Buildings on the right side are leaning. Contrast too low.vAlvesgaspar 15:19, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 19:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Paraneetroplus synspilus 2015 G2.jpg

Paraneetroplus synspilus 2015 G2.jpg

  • Nomination Quetzel cichlid -- George Chernilevsky 20:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Cayambe 07:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Head seems over-exposed to me. --Charlesjsharp 17:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok for me. --Kadellar 01:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough for me Alvesgaspar 15:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Kadellar 01:07, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Μαρίνα Ζέας 8021.JPG

Μαρίνα Ζέας 8021.JPG

  • Nomination Zea harbour or Pasalimani, Piraeus, Greece. --C messier 16:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Not very crisp --Moroder 21:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMHO, crisp enough, please discuss. --C messier 07:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. --Kadellar 01:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Image grainy and undetailed. The camera is to blame, I suppose. Alvesgaspar 15:04, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Kadellar 01:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Hilton Garden Inn, Konya.jpg

Hilton Garden Inn, Konya.jpg

  • Nomination Hilton Garden Inn, Konya, Turkey --Bgag 14:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Not very crisp, boring composition --Moroder 21:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I do not agree. IMHO it's a pretty nice image with a good quality. --Halavar 10:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Moroder --Livioandronico2013 20:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. Sharpness meets QI standard and I don't see any problem with the composition. --Code 18:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question. Is this a hotel or a bycicle and minibus parking lot? I'm disgusted--Moroder 20:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 06:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Lophophorus_impejanus_LC0387.jpg

Lophophorus impejanus LC0387.jpg

  • Nomination Himalayan monal (Lophophorus impejanus), Zoo Leipzig, Germany --LC-de 21:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment please The minimum resolution for submissions is 4 megapixels?--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please don't apply this as a rule as long as it is not agreed. --LC-de 07:40, 21 April 2015 (UTC)*OK! Thank you.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 07:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Moroder 07:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The stone is very disturbing --Livioandronico2013 20:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC))
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per above. Alvesgaspar 15:06, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 21:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Silver-spotted_skipper_butterfly_(Hesperia_comma)_female.jpg

Silver-spotted skipper butterfly (Hesperia comma) female.jpg

  • Nomination Silver-spotted skipper butterfly (Hesperia comma) female --Charlesjsharp 07:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Would work with a more uniformly focused background --Daniel Case 17:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC))
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Would welcome 2nd opinion on the background of this macro image of a butterfly that usually rests near the ground, not on a pretty flower. --Charlesjsharp 07:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the right part of the background is focused because the soil is not uniform and this area is on the same level that of the butterfly which is ok IMO --Christian Ferrer 17:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good for me. --Hockei 13:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 21:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 06:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Πρόσοψη αρχαιολογικού μουσείου Αθηνών 8616.jpg

Πρόσοψη αρχαιολογικού μουσείου Αθηνών 8616.jpg

  • Nomination Facade of the National Archaeological Museum of Athens --C messier 12:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Bgag 13:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose My graal !Clin But looks hazy, lack of crispness. And the sky is too noisy IMO. I ask for a discussion, please.--Jebulon 14:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose colour noise --Denkmalhelfer 15:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per jeb --Livioandronico2013 20:34, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Denoised and added some contrast but I see no lack with sharpness. --C messier 07:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok now.--Hubertl 08:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't see any problem. I only miss some flowers at the foreground. --Kadellar 01:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Can't see any chroma noise -- Alvesgaspar 15:14, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 18:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support .--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Kadellar 01:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Great_Egret_during_mating_season_at_Smith_Oaks_Sanctuary,_High_Island.jpg

Great Egret during mating season at Smith Oaks Sanctuary, High Island.jpg

  • Nomination Great egret (Ardea alba) during mating season at Smith Oaks Sanctuary, High Island --Frank Schulenburg 03:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 05:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The head is not very sharp and the white feathers are overblown. --Charlesjsharp 14:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment No problem with the sharpness. Too tight at bottom (paws are cropped). Little chromatic aberration (see the edges of the white head)?--Lmbuga 13:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good 4 me. --Palauenc05 21:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose See above (paws are cropped, minor CAs IMO) and feathers are a bit overexposed--Lmbuga 17:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you so much for the helpful feedback. I really appreciate it. I reworked the image and uploaded a new version. Sorry for uploading a version with the bird's feet cut off. I should have been more careful. Thanks again, --Frank Schulenburg 13:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent picture, all the faults mentioned above are minor imo. Alvesgaspar 14:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Hockei 08:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality, nice pic.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:34, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 10:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:2015-02-28_Electric_Avenue_Museumsquartier_Wien_Kunstmeile_9519.jpg

2015-02-28 Electric Avenue Museumsquartier Wien Kunstmeile 9519.jpg

  • Nomination Electric Avenue, Museumsquartier, Vienna --Hubertl 07:28, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Strong reflection of the flashlight on the metal --Denkmalhelfer 15:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC). Yes, there is a flashlight. So what? Übrigens: In Deutschland herrscht Vermummungsverbot. Benötigen wir hier Abstimmsocken? --Hubertl 20:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
    [[:Category:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] The quality is ok, but your photobag and your own jacket flashlight is distracting. Sorry, You should take care of such details. --Denkmalhelfer (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support What's the problem? It's good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Nottingham railway station MMB 90 170519 222018.jpg

Nottingham railway station MMB 90 170519 222018.jpg

  • Nomination Nottingham railway station. Mattbuck 07:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much contrast between roof and rest, hard shadows --Denkmalhelfer 15:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Discussion neccessary. --Hubertl 20:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Mattbuck, please lighten the shadows a bit, it will be QI for me then.--Hubertl 22:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
     Not done --Hubertl 21:33, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
    Mattbuck??? --Hubertl 13:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. --Kadellar 00:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine to me, as well. Alvesgaspar 14:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. --PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 10:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 10:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Κηφισιά Πλάτανος 7863.jpg

Κηφισιά Πλάτανος 7863.jpg

  • Nomination The centre of Kifissia, Attica, Greece. --C messier 16:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There are really many problems. its leaning in (on the right side more than left) that means, it tilted too, additionally the lack of contrast. I can´t imagine, that this is just haze. What shall we do, C.? --Hubertl 15:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • I can fix the low contrast issue, but are you sure that it is leaning in? I checked them again and they were IMHO, fine. --C messier 11:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment With PS, I would stretch the upper left corner a bit. There are so many lines, even the doors are not straight to others, and the lantern is skewed. Have a try. --Hubertl 12:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose see comment from Hubertl --Denkmalhelfer 17:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thank you Hubertl for your review, I had overcorrected tilt. --C messier 12:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support sufficient good work.--Hubertl 22:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Just barely acceptable --Σπάρτακος 18:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor light, building seems to be falling. Alvesgaspar 15:08, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support good shoot by a rainy day.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 14:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 00:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

File:2015 04 08 014 35mm camera Fuji Fujica Compact S.jpg

2015 04 08 014 35mm camera Fuji Fujica Compact S.jpg

  • Nomination Kleinbildkamera Fuji Fujica Compact S/35mm camera Fuji Fujica Compact S --F. Riedelio 06:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm not very fond of these vertical lines specially on the left --Moroder 06:46, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ New version Vertical lines corrected. --F. Riedelio 09:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Moroder 22:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMHO, It is distorted now, F. Riedelio is it possible to photograph it again from a more face-on position? --C messier 14:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Uploaded a new corrected version which I would like to Symbol support vote.svg Support. -- Smial 10:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Left vertical lines are tilted, sorry (see note). It is a studio picture: The background color is not appropriate, it resembles too. Could you take a better picture with white background?--Lmbuga 17:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lmbuga,not accetable for this kind of works --Σπάρτακος 18:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg weak support -- Good enough although the crop is too tight. Alvesgaspar 15:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg weak support slightly tilted but QI.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 00:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)(UTC)

File:Viooltje (Viola cornuta), Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonker vallei 02.jpg

Viooltje (Viola cornuta), Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonker vallei 02.jpg

  • Nomination Viola cornuta, Location, Tuinreservaat Jonker vallei.
    Famberhorst 04:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose DOF a tick too shallow. Besides. Please fix the description. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 10:33, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think, for a non studio work it is well done. The center is sharp. This is whats possible with f/13. --Hubertl 15:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Dust spot (see note) is disturbing IMO. F/13, but the DOF is a bit sparse to be QI IMO. Personal opinion: I don't know if it has too much contrast or if it is oversaturated. I don't like the red halo of the yellow edge (see note)--Lmbuga 16:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Dust Spot and edge removed.--Famberhorst 17:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Palauenc05 10:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree that Dof is too shallow. All petals should be sharp. I don't like the distracting backgroud either. Alvesgaspar 11:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 23:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Geranium sylvaticum20140704 481.jpg

Geranium sylvaticum20140704 481.jpg

  • Nomination Flower of Wood cranesbill (Geranium sylvaticum). --Bff 14:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • {{o}} 2,048 × 1,536 pixels. The minimum resolution for submissions is 4 megapixels. Too tight at top IMO--Lmbuga 15:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Please don't apply this ominous rule before there is a real consensus about it which isn't found during a ad-hoc-eastern-holiday-pseudo-vote. --LC-de 22:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't apply the rule. Flowers of Geranium sylvaticum have 2-3 cm. With 3 cm is 4 megapixels too? This is QIC! The picture don't has good composition IMO, but it's a good picture--Lmbuga 16:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Lmbuga. --Code 18:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough for me, the new rule is not in force. Alvesgaspar 11:39, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Ok Alvesgaspar. Composition, see below --Lmbuga 13:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 23:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

File: Bad Wörishofen, Klosterkirche, Fresko - Geißelung.JPG

Bad Wörishofen, Klosterkirche, Fresko - Geißelung.JPG

  • Nomination Fresco Flagellation of Christ in the monastery church of Bad Wörishofen -- Spurzem 09:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeToo blurred. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 20:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Where? Perhaps you should get new glasses? ;-) I ask to discuss. -- Spurzem 21:16, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ah, I see. The fresco painter used a resolution not sufficient for QI. Additionally his brush strokes were a bit uneven and blurred -> too much alcohol? No, taking a look at the edges I dont think its blurred, even if its starting to loose contours due to ISO noise. But this is IMHO still tolerable in this case. --LC-de 11:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me --Rjcastillo 15:58, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 20:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In my opinion the image lacks contrast, probably as a result of the poor lighting conditions. It is possible to fix though. Alvesgaspar 22:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 22:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Alvesgaspar --MB-one 12:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Chroma noise. Why ISO800? Object is not jumping around. -- Smial 10:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good 4 me. --Palauenc05 05:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 21:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Ξυλόσκαλο 3751.jpg

Ξυλόσκαλο 3751.jpg

  • Nomination Fog on Lefka Ori, Crete. --C messier 13:51, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but: no meaningful file naming, stains, uncalibrated Colorspace. --F. Riedelio 15:56, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
    Name is in greek (i think this acceptable) and is the name of the place (+ image number from the camera). Uncalibrated Colorspace maybe due to RawTherapee, I think I can fix it. Can you note the stains on the picture? --C messier 18:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I note some stains on the picture. --F. Riedelio 15:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose fog blow out half of the picture --Denkmalhelfer (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @F. Riedelio, thank you for your review. Cloned out the noted features, although I think it is more possible that these were real world objects, propably garbage. I cannot fix the color space in EXIF data, but sRGB was selected when saving from RawTherapee. --C messier 18:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
@Denkmalhelfer, I can't understand your comment. There is visible structure in the fog (which is also the subject of the image) and as is a thick fog it covers the top of the hills/mountains. I don't see a technical shortcoming there. --C messier 18:16, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment here we are not talking about creative or idea behin the picture, it is pure quality of the pciture. And this is not good due too half of the picture flooded in white fog. --Denkmalhelfer 12:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support with less of the half of the picture flooded in white fog. --Ralf Roletschek 11:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as Ralf.. It was the fog that makes you capture this moment. --Hubertl 15:56, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Even the front of the image, which is not affected by the fog is unsharp and undetailed. Alvesgaspar 22:07, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not bad, just foggy. --Hockei 13:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Contrast and sharpness in foreground could be better, but ok for QI. --MB-one 11:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Alve --Livioandronico2013 20:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I see no issues neither quality nor visual --Christian Ferrer 06:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As said above. --Palauenc05 05:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 22:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Tabla del tiempo (día 8 tras la nominación)

lun 27 abr → mar 05 may
mar 28 abr → mié 06 may
mié 29 abr → jue 07 may
jue 30 abr → vie 08 may
vie 01 may → sáb 09 may
sáb 02 may → dom 10 may
dom 03 may → lun 11 may
lun 04 may → mar 12 may
mar 05 may → mié 13 may