User talk:Tournasol7/Archive1

Tip: Categorizing images[edit]

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello, Tournasol7!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Turysci w Chorwacji.JPG was uncategorized on 10 November 2009 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Topolinek1.JPG was uncategorized on 28 November 2009 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Limburgia1447.jpg was uncategorized on 18 March 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Biskupstwo Liege1447.jpg was uncategorized on 19 March 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Stewartia pseudocamellia11.jpg was uncategorized on 16 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 00:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Saint-Martin38.jpg was uncategorized on 18 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Peyrusse10.jpg was uncategorized on 18 November 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Nederlands ∙ русский ∙ slovenčina ∙ српски (ћирилица) ∙ srpski (latinica) ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ українська ∙ +/−

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2012!

Dear Tournasol7,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2012, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world!

Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 350,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from 36 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet).

If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.

To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2012.

Kind regards,

the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Message delivered by the Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 notification system on 11:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Usunięcie dubla[edit]

Hej,

Zgłosiłem do usunięcia. Na przyszłość - są dwie opcje w takiej sytacji:

Nie ładujesz pliku pod nową nazwa, tylko korzystasz z opcji "załaduj nowszą wersję tego pliku" - to opcja jest u dołu opisu grafiki.
Jeśli jednak już zduplikowałeś plik - wstawiasz do opisu zdjęcia zbędnego takie coś {{duplicate|Nazwa pliku_dobrego.jpg}}

I sprawa będzie załatwiona. Polimerek (talk) 07:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mapki najlepiej robić jako pliki wektorowe svg. Bezpłatne narzędzie do rysowania svg to np: Inkscape: [1]. Można też na start użyć map z w:pl:OpenStreetMap i potem wyeksportować określony fragment z OSM w formie pliku svg i wrysować w niego stare granice za pomocą Inkscape. Ew. może Ci też być przydatne GMT: w:en:Generic Mapping Tools [2] Polimerek (talk) 21:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement[edit]

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement[edit]

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open![edit]

⧼Wikibase-terms/Archive1⧽: Deutsch, Ελληνικά, English, ‎français, magyar, ‎italiano, македонски, ‎‎日本語, ‎‎‎русский, ‎‎‎svenska

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction/en Click here to learn more and vote »]

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement[edit]

Picture of the Year 2013 Results[edit]

In other languages: Deutsch, ‎español, ‎français, ‎日本語, Nederlands, русский, ‎svenska, ‎Türkçe, ‎українська

Dear Tournasol7,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monument aux morts de Clermont-l'Hérault001.JPG[edit]

File:Monument aux morts de Clermont-l'Hérault001.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

V.Riullop (talk) 08:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Centenaire bataille Marne[edit]

File:Monument national de la victoire de la Marne001.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Marianne Casamance (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Centenaire bataille Marne 2[edit]

File:Monument national de la victoire de la Marne002.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

Marianne Casamance (talk) 07:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image du jour de Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 en France, 29 September 2014[edit]

Votre photo « Abbaye Sainte-Marie d'Orbieu098.JPG » a été choisie par les bénévoles de Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 comme image coup de cœur (ou image du jour) du 29 September 2014. Vous avez ainsi remporté un tee-shirt Wiki Loves Monuments. Wikimédia France vous recontactera prochainement pour préparer l'envoi de votre lot.

Et un grand merci pour les 3484 autres photos que tu as partagées lors du concours. Dziękuję ! Pymouss Let’s talk - 22:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aire de repos du viaduc de Millau Autoroute A75(001).JPG[edit]

File:Aire de repos du viaduc de Millau Autoroute A75(001).JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

67.87.46.39 01:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatrol given[edit]

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. -- Rillke^(q?) 09:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2015 is open![edit]

You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2015 Picture of the Year contest.

Dear Tournasol7,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2015 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the tenth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2015) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1322 candidate images. There are 56 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category. In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on 28 May 2016, 23:59:59 UTC.

Click here to vote »

Thanks,
-- Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 09:44, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments Spain 2016 is coming!

Dear Tournasol7,

As every year, Wiki Loves Monuments in Spain, an international photographic contest about cultural heritage in the Spanish territory, will start on next September 1st. On behalf of the Wikipedia community and Wikimedia España (WM-ES), and as a participant in former editions of the event, or in other photographic contests organized by WM-ES, we'd like to encourage you to participate in the 2016 edition. We do know that you've been keen on contributing your work to the free knowledge in the past and therefore believe that you'll be glad to help us again.

We want to inform you about a substantial change in the rules of the contest: this year only images of monuments or municipalities without previous photograph in Wikimedia Commons are accepted. To facilitate hunting monuments and municipalities without a free image, we have prepared a set of specific lists, which can be checked in the contest websites: wikilov.es/monuments or wikilm.es

If you have comments, questions or suggestions about the contest, they are more than welcome. You can leave them here.

We look forward to your free images!

Sincerely,

The team of Wiki Loves Monuments edition in Spain

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Unidentified Ipomoea in Jardin des Plantes de Toulouse 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Ermell 14:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! View of Marcillac-Vallon 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Looks OK to me. --Nikhilb239 23:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Villecomtal 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Looks OK to me. --Nikhilb239 00:02, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! View of Béziers.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments OK. --A.Savin 17:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Houses on the water in Kampong Phlouk.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 09:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright status: File:Random Proba.webm[edit]

bahasa melayu ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ deutsch ∙ english ∙ español ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ತುಳು ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ עברית ∙ العربيَّة ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Random Proba.webm. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the VRT system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. If you have any questions about licenses please ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright or see our help pages. Thank you.

Ju Ta 17:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! River Kwai Bridge.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Exposure control could have been better but good enough for QI, I think. --Slaunger 21:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Abbaye Sainte-Foy de Conques 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Ermell 14:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chapelle Saint-André à Auriac001.JPG[edit]

File:Chapelle Saint-André à Auriac001.JPG has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ eesti ∙ English ∙ español ∙ Esperanto ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ hrvatski ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ occitan ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ shqip ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ Zazaki ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ ไทย ∙ 조선말 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 简体中文‎ ∙ 繁體中文‎ ∙ עברית ∙ العربية ∙ پښتو ∙ فارسی ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ +/−

77.144.214.209 10:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! View on Conques.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Ermell 06:42, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Abbaye Sainte-Foy de Conques 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality -- Spurzem 22:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! The roof top of Abbaye Sainte-Foy de Conques.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality -- Spurzem 21:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Abbaye Sainte-Foy de Conques 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Beautiful and good quality -- Spurzem 21:50, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Residential houses in Conques.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good composition, good lighting and good quality -- Spurzem 21:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chapel of St. Roch in Conques 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. I've added Category:Church doors in France to it, please remember such categories in the future. --W.carter 09:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chapel of St. Roch in Conques 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chapel of St. Roch in Conques 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Not perfectly sharp but better than the previous image in the series, and acceptable for QI. Juliancolton 18:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Pont romain sur le Dourdou 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 17:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Pont romain sur le Dourdou 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments OK. --A.Savin 14:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Château de Vieillevie 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Sufficient for QI but you could further improve the picture if you'd lighten up the shadows a little bit and if you'd clone out the blurry bird on the upper right. --Code 18:28, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Porte du Barry 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Overall OK, although the quality decreases towards the top. --A.Savin 14:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rue Charlemagne in Conques 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments OK, this one is acceptable --Daniel Case 04:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of Bournazel 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments There's some sort of yellow smudge on the bottom-left edge, perhaps an OOF flower or something. Happy to promote once that's cropped or cloned out. Juliancolton 02:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done, it was a branch. Tournasol7 07:44, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. Juliancolton 00:22, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of Bournazel 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Nicely composed; I don't mind the trees at the edges being unsharp because the castle's the subject --Daniel Case 04:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of Bournazel 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Wish that crane wasn't there ... --Daniel Case 04:09, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vieux Pont de Belcastel, Aveyron, France.[edit]

Hy Krzysztof, what program are you working with? LG reinhold

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Street in Belcastel 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality although your lens seems to suffer from weak corner sharpness. You should consider buying a new one. --Code 04:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vieux Pont de Belcastel 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Corner sharpness is weak but still good quality. --Code 04:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vieux Pont de Belcastel 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Rafesmar 20:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vieux Pont de Belcastel 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Moroder 06:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of Belcastel 14.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality.--Famberhorst 04:54, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Moulin de Sanhes 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Disappointingly soft around the corners and edges, but the center is acceptably sharp. Juliancolton 00:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Residential house in Belcastel.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Moroder 11:12, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Château de Selves 10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Happy birthday to you! Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 02:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Château de Selves 14.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Uoaei1 04:15, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Moulin de Sanhes 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Focus to main object is good enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 05:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Anemone pulsatilla.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality and cool "ring bokeh" --A.Savin 12:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Anemone pulsatilla 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:00, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Château de la Garde 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 21:58, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Château de la Garde 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 02:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Château de la Garde 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 02:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Château de Selves 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 22:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Château de Selves 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Declining sharpness in the corners but o.k. --Ermell 16:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vieux Pont de Belcastel 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Better now. --Ermell 16:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Château de la Garde 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 22:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chapelle Notre-Dame de Foncourrieu.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 22:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Street in La Vinzelle 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. A bit on th overprocessed side but ok, not more, not less. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 22:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Château de la Garde 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments good quality. PumpkinSky 12:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re:File:Castle of Colombier 11.jpg[edit]

Mam Lightroom i postaram się pomóc, ale tak jak pisałem, może to być zbyt trudne, bo albo źle wywołałeś zdjęcie z RAW-a albo po prostu obiektyw się nie spisał i zdjęcie nie wyszło, bo poza środkiem kadru wszystko jest rozmazane. Oby była to opcja pierwsza:) --Halavar (talk) 18:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ca bardzo łatwo się usuwa w Lightroom jeśli zdjęcie masz w formacie RAW. W dziale Develop masz zakładkę Lens Corrections. Tam musisz ustawić jaki masz aparat i jaki obiektyw w podzakładce Profile. Klikasz na Enable Profile Corrections. W podzakładce Basic musisz mieć włączone dwie opcje: Enable Profile Corrections oraz Remove Chromatic Aberration. To wystarczy. Każde zdjęcie które robisz w RAW a popem chcesz je wywołać do JPEG powinieneś otwierać w Lightroom, tam poddać tym zmianom oraz innym dodatkowym a następnie wywołać do JPEG. Spróbuj samemu, ale oprócz tego prześlij mi to zdjęcie w RAW i ja też je wywołam a potem porównamy wyniki:) --Halavar (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hej! U mnie też tak działał, gdy miałem tylko 4 GB pamięci RAM. Gdy zwiększyłem pamięć i w związku z czym zmieniłem system na 64-bitowy, Lightroom momentalnie dostał kopa i teraz śmiga:) --Halavar (talk) 10:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of Colombier 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Uoaei1 04:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Street in La Vinzelle.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. IMO the car is disturbing, but acceptable. --XRay 06:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bell tower of Saint-Roch Church in La Vinzelle.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Moroder 16:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Dolmen de Saint-Antonin 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 22:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Église Saint-Amans de Cadayrac 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 22:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of Colombier 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Ermell 06:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! La Vinzelle 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Comment The image is tilted CCW. And sharpness isn't at the best. --XRay 06:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New version. Tournasol7 14:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thank you. IMO OK now. --XRay 15:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Jacob Church in Calès.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Quality high enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 05:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Jacob Church in Calès 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Comment Some Chromatic aberration (see the notes). --Halavar 20:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New version, but some CA remain. Tournasol7 22:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good now, QI for me --Halavar 10:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of Colombier 13.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 19:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of Colombier 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Comment Okay, but oversaturated green. --A.Savin 07:39, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New version, is it better? Tournasol7 14:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC) Yes, looks quite good now. --A.Savin 10:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Église Saint-Amans de Cadayrac 10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments GQ --Palauenc05 22:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Église Saint-Amans de Cadayrac 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Comment Red CA in the lower-left corner (see the note) --Halavar 22:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tournasol7 12:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I added your version, thanks. Tournasol7 15:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality --Halavar 15:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Église Saint-Amans de Cadayrac 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 05:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Château de la Garde 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments GQ --Palauenc05 22:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of Dalmayrac 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Milseburg 13:46, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Église Saint-Amans de Cadayrac 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
A bit noisy and deformed. Also reduce the contrast please. --Michielverbeek 05:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New version, better? Tournasol7 15:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not perfect, but quality is high enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 07:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of Colombier 08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 08:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Castle of Dalmayrac 06.jpg[edit]

I have made an attempt to improve this file and I have renominate it. What have I done in LR: at first standard lense-correction inclusive automatic upright, manual: vertical -4, horizontal -4 and rotation -0,6. I think the perspective is good enough for Q1, but I have my doubts about the sharpness. We need a third opinion for the Q1-promotion, --Michielverbeek (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ancienne grange monastique de Séveyrac 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Ermell 06:40, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ancienne grange monastique de Séveyrac 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Comment Magenta CA in the foreground, especially on the top of the picture. --Code 04:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done (I think so). Tournasol7 14:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Acceptable given the size of the image. --Code 05:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ancienne grange monastique de Séveyrac 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Comment Heavy CA, especially at the top of the building. --Code 04:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done (I think so). Tournasol7 14:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. --Code 05:45, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Église Saint-Amans de Cadayrac 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Tilted - please make verticals straight --Uoaei1 03:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tournasol7 15:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good quality. --W.carter 08:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St Martin church in Sénergues 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality. --C messier 10:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of Dalmayrac 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Maybe needs more contrast, but good quality anyway. --C messier 10:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of Dalmayrac 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments It needs a rotation to the right --Michielverbeek 06:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tournasol7 15:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the verticals are correct. However image looks deformed; the horizontal gutter is not straight. Is it possible to repair this and keep the verticals correct? --Michielverbeek 05:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, too much difficult for me. Tournasol7 13:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have made an attempt Done but please a third opinion --Michielverbeek 21:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Michiel, good enough. QI. --W.carter 07:12, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Church in Langac 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Comment Please check your image. IMO too much sky, too much street, perspective problems (may be tilted too). --XRay 07:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done, better? Tournasol7 15:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support IMO better. May be it's still a little bit tilted CCW. --XRay 09:49, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of Sénergues.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Cvmontuy 15:39, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! View on Muret-le-Château 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --XRay 16:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Street in Muret-le-Château 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Halavar 12:23, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Street in Muret-le-Château 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Berthold Werner 05:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Street in Muret-le-Château 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 08:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Residential house in Muret-le-Château 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments OK for me. --Basotxerri 19:01, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St Martin church in Sénergues 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments I think the image can be good enough but perhaps could you try to tone up the shadows a bit? Control the noise when doing it... --Basotxerri 10:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunetelly I lost my RAW file... so I worked on JPG file and I don't know if it enought quality now. And I brightened the shadows as much as possible. Tournasol7 18:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK for me, thank you! --Basotxerri 18:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vestiges of the castle in Muret-le-Chateau 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Halavar 12:43, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vestiges of the castle in Muret-le-Chateau 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments OK. --A.Savin 11:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Vestiges of the castle in Muret-le-Chateau 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Weak support Be careful to the focus on the left --Billy69150 13:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ancienne grange monastique de Séveyrac 17.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 14:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Church in Langac 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 14:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Church in Langac 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 14:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Church in Langac 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 14:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mairie de Bozouls 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 22:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mairie de Bozouls 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 22:31, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Syringa vulgaris flowers.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Halavar 23:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of Assier 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Halavar 22:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Trou de Bozouls 21.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 07:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of Assier 13.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Atamari 22:17, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of Assier 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 13:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of Assier 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good focus to the tower and verticals are well done. I would only remove the pigeon (inclusive shadow) in the front --Michielverbeek 05:12, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of Assier 08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Harsh light, but good quality --Uoaei1 13:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of Assier 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 11:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Southern medieval tower in Bozouls.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality... though to my taste there is a bit too much of street here. --Cayambe 14:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! View on Rodelle 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Will anyone look? Tournasol7 22:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would clone out the blurry bird, but otherwise, OK. --C messier 13:45, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Church in Langac 10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Cvmontuy 10:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Peter Church of Assier 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Vengolis 01:48, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Peter Church of Assier 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 06:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Peter Church of Assier 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support IMO it lacks of shadows but ok --Christian Ferrer 06:37, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Categories[edit]

Cześć! Mi chodziło nie o kategorię aparatu czy kategorię April 2017 in France, bo w tym co napisałeś jest sens i nie mam nic do tego. Mi chodziło o dwie inne rzeczy:

1) W tym zdjęciu File:Saint Saturnin Church of Le Bourg 04.jpg miałeś tylko i wyłącznie kategorię kościoła, a trzeba także dodać kategorię tego, co przedstawia zdjęcie, czyli drzwi. Dlatego dodałem te dwie kategorie do tego zdjęcia.
2) Po tym jak zdjęcie otrzyma status QI, powinieneś także dodawać kategorie związane z QI, a więc kategorię miejsca (miasto lub prowincja, a w twoim przypadku Francji to departament, no chyba że jest to jakieś większe miasto które ma swoja kategorię QI) oraz kategorię obiektu, czyli Quality images of churches in France dla kościoła lub Quality images of buildings in France gdy zdjęcie przedstawia w całości jeden lub kilka budynków lub też Quality images of architecture in France, gdy zdjęcie przedstawia jakiś fragment budynku lub szerzej coś związanego z architekturą. Popatrz sobie na Twoje zdjęcia QI gdzie pododawałem te kategorie, wtedy będziesz wiedział mniej więcej które kategorie QI dodawać.
Poza tym, widać różnice w obróbce Twoich zdjęć, teraz wyglądają o wiele lepiej. Dobra robota! --Halavar (talk) 16:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tak jak napisałem Ci poprzednio: Hej! U mnie też tak działał, gdy miałem tylko 4 GB pamięci RAM. Gdy zwiększyłem pamięć i w związku z czym zmieniłem system na 64-bitowy, Lightroom momentalnie dostał kopa i teraz śmiga:) Tak więc jeśli chcesz szybciej przerabiać pliki RAW, musisz dokupić pamięć RAM. --Halavar (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Saturnin Church of Le Bourg 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. Please remember to add more categories. --Halavar 22:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Cyr and Saint Julitte Church of La Pannonie 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
Comment Please add some contrast. The picture looks very hazy this way. --Code 04:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done, better? Tournasol7 15:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok. --Code 04:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Portail of the Saint Cyr and Saint Julitte Church of La Pannonie 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support good quality --Christian Ferrer 06:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Window of the Saint Cyr and Saint Julitte Church of La Pannonie 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Peulle 21:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Cyr and Saint Julitte Church of La Pannonie 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Pudelek 06:21, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Cyr and Saint Julitte Church of La Pannonie 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality--Manfred Kuzel 04:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Tours medievales a Bozouls 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Cvmontuy 04:41, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Halle d'Assier 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Comment needs a little denoising in the dark parts --Zoppo59 18:46, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I tried, but I don't know that is better... Tournasol7 21:03, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
now good for me --Zoppo59 06:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Pigeon house of the castle of Assier 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Tilted and needs some perspective correction. --W.carter 09:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done, it's better? Tournasol7 21:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good quality. --W.carter 09:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Pigeon house of the castle of Assier 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Tilted and needs some perspective correction, the shadows in the foreground are also unattractive in the composition, a crop might be in order. --W.carter 09:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done, it's better? Tournasol7 21:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good enough. QI. --W.carter 09:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Martial Church of Rudelle 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --СССР 04:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint-Martin Church of Themines 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Halle de Themines 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Is good quality for me, but wood be better if you crop the shaddow at the bottom. --Zoppo59 13:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done, Tournasol7 18:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mairie de Themines 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Is good for me, --Zoppo59 13:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint-Martin Church of Themines 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support is good for me, --Zoppo59 13:05, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Portal of Saint-Martin Church of Themines.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality.--Manfred Kuzel 05:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Pigeon house of the castle of Assier 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Moroder 05:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sanctuaire de Rocamadour 18.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality.--Manfred Kuzel 04:06, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Cyr and Saint Julitte Church of La Pannonie 08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality.--Manfred Kuzel 04:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Halle de Themines 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 07:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Moulin de Cougnaguet 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Basotxerri 19:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bell tower of Saint-Martin Church of Themines.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments The bottom is straight and horizontal, but the upper tower is leaning. Is it doing that in reality or could you fix this? --W.carter 21:26, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New version. Tournasol7 13:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good quality. --W.carter 14:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Grandes escaliers de la cité religieuse de Rocamadour 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 08:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Saturnin Church of Le Bourg 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments It's a bit deformed, please correct the verticals --Michielverbeek 05:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done, it's better now? Tournasol7 13:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! --Michielverbeek 05:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of La Treyne 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments SupportGood quality.--Manfred Kuzel 20:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sanctuaire de Rocamadour 20.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Maybe maybe something sharper, but good enough for me.--Famberhorst 16:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Cyr and Saint Julitte Church of La Pannonie 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Halavar 16:39, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Halle de Themines 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --A.Savin 10:46, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of La Treyne 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Could you remove the unsharp parts on the left, please? --Basotxerri 17:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Basotxerri: Done. Tournasol7 21:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. OK for me now. --Basotxerri 12:38, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Martial Church of Rudelle 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments OK for me. --Tuxyso 19:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sanctuaire de Rocamadour 25.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments SupportGood quality.--Manfred Kuzel 05:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Portal of Saint Martial Church of Rudelle.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --СССР 04:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Pigeon house of the castle of Assier 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Comment Right side of the image is blurred. It's better to make a crop. --Halavar 10:50, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done, it's better? Tournasol7 20:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good quality. --Basotxerri 12:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Martial Church of Rudelle 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Verticals are good enough for Q1 and that's for the most important thing. Only the crop with the cars in right bottom corner is very small --Michielverbeek 22:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Moulin de Cougnaguet 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality for me. --Manfred Kuzel 04:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Saturnin Church of Le Bourg 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 02:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rue Roland le Preux.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --A.Savin 02:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Maison de la Paumette 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Is that house really bulging like that or is it barrel distortion from your camera? --W.carter 21:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is not straight, so I had a trouble to found the verticals. Tournasol7 22:26, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I just had to ask first. :) Good quality. --W.carter 22:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of La Treyne 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Moroder 07:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Window of Saint Martial Church of Rudelle.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Uoaei1 09:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Town hall of Rudelle.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --W.carter 21:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Cyr and Saint Julitte Church of La Pannonie 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Comment It would be better if you concentreted on just one or two photos from the same, or almost the same, angle of a subject. Having this many versions for QI serves no purpous and only add extra work for the rest of us, especially since you do not review any photos yourself. --W.carter 09:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A bit soft on the left side but the main subject is sharp enough. --W.carter 22:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! La Porte Sainte 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 02:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Porte del'Hospitalet 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Le Portail de Basilique Saint Sauveur.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 20:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! La fenetre de Chapelle Notre-Dame de Rocamadour.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Pity the deep shade, but good quality.--Famberhorst 16:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! La fenetre de Chapelle Notre-Dame de Rocamadour 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Slaunger 17:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! La Porte Sainte 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality.--Manfred Kuzel 07:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Moulin de Cougnaguet 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 22:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Halle de Themines 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Maison de la Paumette 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 22:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Grandes escaliers de la cité religieuse de Rocamadour 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Looks OK.--Peulle 12:08, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of La Treyne 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality.--Manfred Kuzel 04:36, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Church of Hospitalet 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:30, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Crypte de Saint Amadour.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 07:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Triforia au cite religieuse de Rocamadour.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 07:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cite religieuse de Rocamadour 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments OK. --A.Savin 08:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Escaliers au cite religieuse de Rocamadour.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. Nice abstraction. --W.carter 10:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Portal of Saint Saturnin Church of Tourbes 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 23:17, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hopital de l'Hospitalet.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments GQ --Palauenc05 08:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! View on Rocamadour 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments GQ --Palauenc05 08:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Portal of Saint Saturnin Church of Tourbes 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments This one could deserve some additional category of the type Wooden door in..., for example. Good quality. --Basotxerri 18:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Porte del'Hospitalet 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality.--Manfred Kuzel 05:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Porte Hugon.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 15:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Porte du Figuier 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Berthold Werner 14:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Statue near the Saint Saturnin Church of Tourbes 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Berthold Werner 14:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bell tower of Collegiate Church of St. John 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Llez 14:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Clock on bell tower of Collegiate Church of St. John.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 15:58, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bell tower of Collegiate Church of St. John 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 09:36, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Maison de la Paumette 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments The partial lamp up top and the disemodied arm below needs to be cropped off, think you can do that? --W.carter 09:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@W.carter: Cropped, Tournasol7 15:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good quality. --W.carter 07:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Saturnin Church of Tourbes 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Monument on Place de la Republique.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Basotxerri 17:28, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Porte Basse.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 17:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint George Church of Meyraguet.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Comment Right side of the image needs perspective correction (see the note) --Halavar 22:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Tournasol7 14:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perspective is good now, but the colours looks unnatural (too much blue and violet). Please change the White Balance --Halavar 12:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Halavar: , it's better now? Tournasol7 15:33, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, much better. QI for me --Halavar 11:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Eglise Notre-Dame-des-Champs de Mostuejouls 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 15:32, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! La porte laterale d'Eglise Notre-Dame-des-Champs de Mostuejouls.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality.--Manfred Kuzel 14:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Porte du Figuier.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 16:35, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Stained glass window in the Saint Felix Church in Laissac 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Comment need perspective correction. Olivier LPB 16:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Olivier LPB: Done, Tournasol7 16:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good quality now. --Olivier LPB 19:08, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Saturnin Church of Tourbes 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Comment Image needs perspective correction. All leaning outside --Halavar 16:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thanks Halavar. Tournasol7 23:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good now. QI for me --Halavar 16:46, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of La Treyne 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments It is very bright. Could you pleas tone it down a bit? And maybe crop off some of that uninteresting lawn in front. See note. --W.carter 15:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done, Tournasol7 14:30, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Good quality. --W.carter 19:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CA removal[edit]

Hi Tournasol7,

I've seen that you've withdrawn the image where I let some instructions for removing chromating aberrations. I don't know exactly why so I'd like to know if you tried to follow the instructions and they didn't work or if you didn't recognise the CAs as such. Chromatic aberrations can always happen and removing them is a normal part of image preparation. If I can help you here in any way, please tell me.

Best regards, --Basotxerri (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sainte-Austremoine Church 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 22:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sainte-Austremoine Church 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 22:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sainte-Austremoine Church 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Basotxerri 20:21, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sainte-Austremoine Church 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 22:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sainte-Austremoine Church 08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. PumpkinSky 21:32, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Eglise Notre-Dame-des-Champs de Mostuejouls 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Dirtsc 13:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Roland le Preux Street.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Dirtsc 13:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merci ![edit]

Bonjour, merci pour ton avis sur mon cliché de la maison Renaissance à Castelnau, j'ai appris à me servir de GIMP et du plugin EZPerspective... et du coup à avoir le réflexe de correction de ces problèmes de perspective ! --LeZibou (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Main entrance to the Castle Lugans.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 20:00, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chapelle Notre Dame de la Salette in Nauviale 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chapelle Notre Dame de la Salette in Nauviale 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Llez 16:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chapelle Notre Dame de la Salette in Nauviale 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of Peyreleau 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 12:11, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sainte-Austremoine Church 10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Llez 16:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle Lugans 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Comment 3 birds that should be cloned out (see the note) --Halavar 14:52, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Halavar: Done, Tournasol7 15:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thanks! Good now. QI for me --Halavar 15:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Town hall of Peyreleau.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Llez 14:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! View on Le Rozier.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Llez 14:07, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Porte Salmon 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Basotxerri 14:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Felix Church in Laissac.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality, meets QI for me, even with the bit stragen look of the car and person because of strong perspective correction --J. Lunau 16:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Stained glass window in the Saint Felix Church in Laissac 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality.--Manfred Kuzel 05:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Porte Hugon 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 18:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Valley of Tarn River 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Nice. -- Ikan Kekek 21:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Sauveur Church of Le Rozier.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Uoaei1 03:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Sauveur Church of Le Rozier 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 18:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Sauveur Church of Le Rozier 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 18:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sainte-Austremoine Church 11.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Llez 17:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sainte-Austremoine Church 12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. PumpkinSky 13:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Door of the Sainte-Austremoine Church.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Basotxerri 15:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chapelle Notre Dame de la Salette in Nauviale 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of La Treyne 10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Building seems somewhat tilted to the right, but good image quality for me.--Famberhorst 16:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of La Treyne 11.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Dirtsc 11:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of La Treyne 12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. Maybe a little bit too bright and with slight unsharpness in the tree on the left. --Dirtsc 11:29, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle Le Triadou.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Basotxerri 18:45, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle Lugans 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. Nice perspective with the trees and the portal. --LeZibou 18:37, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle Lugans 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. This perspecive isn´t easy to handle. --Milseburg 09:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Faith Church in Montrozier.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 13:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Old bridge upon Aveyron River in Montrozier.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 13:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of Montrozier 08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 13:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of Montrozier 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 13:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of Montrozier 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 13:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of Severac 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 09:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Tarn River in Les Vignes.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 23:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Tarn River in Les Vignes 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 23:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Canoeing on Tarn River 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 23:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint-Sauveur Church of Liaucous 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 23:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Christopher Church in Saint-Christophe-Vallon 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 16:51, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Eglise Notre-Dame-des-Champs de Mostuejouls 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Source of Aveyron River A.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good job with the varied lighting. PumpkinSky 11:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lac de Saint-Andéol 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 15:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ruisseau des Pleches 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Eglise Notre-Dame-des-Champs de Mostuejouls 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Eglise Notre-Dame-des-Champs de Mostuejouls 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality --Lmbuga 19:11, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bell tower of the Saint Felix Church in Laissac.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Bottom crop isn't optimal but QI for me. --C messier 11:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! La fenetre d'Eglise Notre-Dame-des-Champs de Mostuejouls.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Halavar 14:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lac de Saint-Andéol 08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Ermell 07:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bayon temple 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 15:50, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sainte-Austremoine Church.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Halavar 14:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sainte-Austremoine Church 13.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments This one looks really good, especially the clouds and shadow in front. Good quality. --Basotxerri 15:02, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rue du Porche 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Halavar 14:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Route D29.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Halavar 13:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Flowers of Viburnum lantana 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 15:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Porte Salmon 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 13:29, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! View on La Cresse 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 15:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle Lugans 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Milseburg 11:55, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bell tower of the Saint Felix Church in Laissac 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 14:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint-Sauveur Church of Liaucous 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 14:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Eglise Notre-Dame-des-Champs de Mostuejouls 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 14:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! La porte principale d'Eglise Notre-Dame-des-Champs de Mostuejouls.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 14:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bellis perennis in La Cresse.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 14:28, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Valley of Tarn River.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 18:45, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint-Martin Church of Pinet 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Llez 14:23, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bell tower of Saint Sauveur Church of Le Rozier.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 17:40, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Window of Saint Sauveur Church of Le Rozier.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Llez 14:22, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Stone Cross in settlement Sainte-Austremoine 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments I assume that the cross is tilted in reality. If not, please correct; besides, the image is OK. Please give some cross-related category. --Basotxerri 14:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the cross is tilted in reality. Categories added. Tournasol7 16:28, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Good quality. --Basotxerri 17:34, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! View on Lac des Salhiens 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support OK for me. --C messier 09:53, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Church in Panat.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 13:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Boralde de Saint-Chely-d'Aubrac.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Basotxerri 16:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Mary Church of Nasbinals.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments GQ --Palauenc05 14:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bridge Les Pelerins 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI -- Spurzem 21:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint-Julien Church of Ayrinhac 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Cvmontuy 22:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Fagus sylvatica in Jardin Botanique de l'Aubrac 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. PumpkinSky 15:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sainte-Austremoine Church 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments GQ --Palauenc05 14:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lac de Saint-Andéol 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Basotxerri 15:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of Severac 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. PumpkinSky 13:10, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of Panat 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! View on the Castle of Panat.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Much better --Poco a poco 19:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of Severac 18.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Ermell 14:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bell tower of the Saint Cosmas Church 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good. -- Ikan Kekek 18:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Portal of the Saint Cosmas Church.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Nice scene. You could add some person-related category (pilgrim?). Good quality. --Basotxerri 14:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Category added, Tournasol7 15:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint-Julien Church of Ayrinhac 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality and I'm assuming the yellow stuff on the roof is fungus or something else natural. PumpkinSky 14:37, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't remember it. Tournasol7 15:46, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chapel of the Penitents of Saint-Come-d'Olt 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. I am usually not convinced by the vertical corrections, but here, it's a nice job. --MirandaAdramin 20:04, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chapelle Notre Dame de la Salette in Nauviale 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Llez 17:21, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle Lugans 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 15:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint-Martin Church of Pinet 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 16:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Centaurea montana in Jardin Botanique de l'Aubrac 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. PumpkinSky 10:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lac de Saint-Andéol 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Un peu pâle (contraste) et un peu bleu (poteaux, fil de fer), mais QI.--Jebulon 09:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Christopher Church in Saint-Christophe-Vallon 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Weak Support Good quality. Nevertheless the image is a little bit too bright and there are very minor CAs at the top. And IMO too much green at the bottom. --XRay 17:51, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Door of Saint-Martin Church of Pinet.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality -- Spurzem 17:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Window of Saint-Martin Church of Pinet.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 17:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bell tower of Saint-Martin Church of Pinet.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality --Llez 17:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rue des Penitents in Saint-Come-d'Olt 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Comment Heavy magenta CA in the upper right corner. --Code 12:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done, Tournasol7 14:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ok. --Code 12:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint Mary Church of Nasbinals 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Cvmontuy 15:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lac de Saint-Andéol 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of Belcastel and Vieux Pont.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Beautiful and good quality -- Spurzem 14:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of Belcastel 18.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. PumpkinSky 23:57, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle Lugans 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 22:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Town hall of Nasbinals.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. PumpkinSky 00:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Church of Cornusson 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Basotxerri 17:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! View on Mostuéjouls.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. Straight view. --MirandaAdramin 15:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Valley of Tarn River 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 19:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! View on the Church in Panat.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments GQ --Palauenc05 16:48, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Leaf of Viburnum lantana.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. PumpkinSky 12:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chapel of the Penitents of Saint-Come-d'Olt 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 16:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Castle of Panat 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments The outline of building against the sky could have been slightly sharper, but okay for me.--Famberhorst 17:50, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint-Sauveur Church of Liaucous.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 16:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint-Sauveur Church of Liaucous 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 16:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint-Sauveur Church of Liaucous 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Quality is high enough for Q1 but I think the corner in which you took the photo is quiet sharp (possibilities for taking more distance to the church? --Michielverbeek 15:12, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Michielverbeek: Unfortunately the church is located on the slope. I could not go back. Tournasol7 22:22, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint-Sauveur Church of Liaucous 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 15:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint-Sauveur Church of Liaucous 08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 15:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint-Sauveur Church of Liaucous 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 15:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Street in settlement Liaucous.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 15:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Calystegia pulchra in Druelle.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. PumpkinSky 12:46, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Echinacea purpurea in Jardin botanique de la Charme 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality -- Spurzem 12:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hemerocallis Neyron Rose in Jardin botanique de la Charme 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Beautiful colors and good quality -- Spurzem 12:43, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Hemerocallis lilioasphodelus in Jardin botanique de la Charme 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Phytolacca decandra in Jardin botanique de la Charme 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --PJeganathan 10:55, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Saint-Martin Church of Pinet.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Platycodon grandiflorus in Jardin botanique de la Charme.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Moroder 09:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Callirhoe involucrata in Jardin botanique de la Charme 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Berthold Werner 08:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ceiba speciosa in Jardin botanique de la Charme 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --PJeganathan 08:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Ceiba speciosa in Jardin botanique de la Charme 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Agapanthus africanus in Jardin botanique de la Charme 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. --Shankar Raman 16:37, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cynara scolymus in Jardin botanique de la Charme 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Good quality. PumpkinSky 23:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cynara scolymus in Jardin botanique de la Charme 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments QI for me; I would crop off the half a flower on the left, and a little off the right. --Alandmanson 11:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]