Support Best in scope. As for the translation, Google suggests the term 'Hosanna cross'. The term is used in The Life of Francois Rabelais and comes up in other publications in a Google book search so I would be happy with what Google suggests. Nev1 (talk) 18:01, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Nev1 : scope modified. Would you be so kind as to vote again, according to the FP rules. Thanks in advance. --JLPC (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Support new scope. Nev1 (talk) 14:17, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
just a small comment to the above file: Megachile versicolor don't eat the leafs of the Cercis siliquastrum, they just use the pieces for building the nest. Cheers, --P e z i (talk) 11:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot : it's important ; mistake corrected. --JLPC (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Salut Jean-Louis, je te remercie encore pour avoir assembler le panorama, en guise de remerciment, bien que tu n'ais rien demandé, j'ai nominé cette image comme FPC, je t'ai déjà dis ce que j'en pensai et espère qu'elle sera promue sinon au moins on sera fixé, à bientot. --Christian Ferrer 06:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Cymbidium x cultivar (cymbidium), inflorescence. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
No required license templates were detected at this file page. Please correct it, or if you have any questions please contact me on my talk page. Yours sincerely, Jarekt (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Done, thanks.--JLPC (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Good quality. --Cayambe 19:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Yes, good quality, but please take care of the left side of the window; it's inclining inwards. --Cccefalon 19:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC) Done, thanks. --JLPC 22:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
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:
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.
I would appreciate, if you apply perspective correction. It will be a most wonderful QI then :) --Cccefalon 19:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Done : new corrected file uploaded. --JLPC 21:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Thank you! --Cccefalon 07:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Comment IMO perspective correction could improve the image. --P e z i 15:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC) Done as much as possible imo... Thanks anyway for the hint. --JLPC 08:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC) Support Think it's OK now. --P e z i 21:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Good quality. --P e z i 18:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Invitation to take part in the categorization of QIEdit
Dear JLPC! Your images were reviewed and have been promoted to Quality Image status. Congratulations! I invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. All new images with this status are automatically placed to the page Commons:Quality_images/Recently_promoted. They have to be manually tagged with relevant categories using the QI categorization tool (see link at the top of the page, the author of this tool is User:Dschwen). Very few users do this job now, so a large number of uncategorizated photos time to time accumulates on this page... --Bff (talk) 08:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Nice but is Underexposed, I think so and need more sharpening. Could be nice more DoF too (but in this moment is aceptable) --The Photographer 18:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC) Done : new file uploaded. --JLPC 21:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC) I am sorry but the contrast is hard, there are zones in black already Underexposed. See notes --The Photographer 23:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC) Done : New file uploaded. --JLPC 12:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC) beau. À mon avis, cette image est de qualité --The Photographer 15:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Bonjour JLPC. Si tu as l'occasion de passer dans le coin, il y aurait la façade nord du château de Charmant, qui présente une galerie magnifique. On peut voir la photo sur la base Mérimée, ici (en espérant que la vue soit bien celle de Charmant, car parfois la base Mérimée fait des erreurs...). Cordialement, Jack ma (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Salut JLPC! J'aime toujours les belle photos de Paris. FP ou VI c'est pas trop important, mais peut-être un petit plaisir pour moi et les photographeurs aussi. Tu peux voir ici, il n'y a pas beaucoup des images de qualité des hotels, banks, schools, sports venues... Donc, j'attend tes nouvelles photos. Bon séjour à Paris!--Paris 16 (talk) 22:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Bonjour JLPC. Merci bien pour tes nouvelles photos de Charente. J'ai apporté quelques petites modifications de catégories : pour les portails charentais, ils vont dans Category:Gates in Charente ("gate" est une porte traversant un mur d'enceinte, et "portal" en façade d'un bâtiment). Les 2 clock towers que j'ai vus sont en fait des Category:Church towers in Charente. Je crois aussi que Category:Church doors sera à recréer, car toutes les portes sur des églises ne sont pas forcément des portails. Cordialement et bonne continuation, Jack ma (talk) 05:56, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I am really concerned about the recent promotion of this image. The colours are not like the original painting. The painting has layers of varnish. It also has very deep shadows. This version has been bleached out to the extent that some areas have lost their colour and are a greyish monochrome, almost unthinkable for Leonardo da Vinci.
Likewise, the recently promoted version of the Mona Lisa (File:La Gioconda.jpg) has had the sky bleached to grey, the face greyed and the sleeves, which indicate pinkish red below the varnish, faded to a greenish grey.
I have left a message on User:ANGELUS talk page. Currently, the new version of the Virgin of the Rocks has replaced other versions on a great many pages. This should be reverted until this matter is sorted out, and we have an image in which the coloration is similar to that on the Louvre website.
I'm always anxious when I promote a painting in Quality Images, Valued Image Candidate or Featured Pictures, especially when I've never seen the painting in real. I didn't know this work but I assessed it according to the rules on the VI page : a/ quality (which picture is the best in scope (... up to now) ?), b/ usefulness (is it used on some or many Wikipedia pages ?), c/trust in other users (I'm not the only one : every one can vote pro or contra within a few days with some explanations or without any). Futhermore, the assesment can be suppressed at any time if you think another picture is better in the category. There's a special part (called MVR, i. e. "Most valued reviews")on the VI page, where every one is allowed to nominate a new picture so as to replace another. So, if you think that ANGELUS' photo isn't the best, you can easily ask for a MVR or upload another version if you know where it is or if you've got one.
Anyway, I'm glad to know you're a specialist in museum practise and education : feel free to vote, to discuss and to nominate pictures on the different Commons pages. Wikipedia is a collective work and it's always very useful to get specialist's advices or works.
Sorry for my English. Friendly. JLPC (talk) 10:59, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for getting back to me. The image that ANGELUS has uploaded is very large, and is higher resolution than any other on Wikimedia Commons. However, the colours are wrong as they appear to have been "digitally corrected" or something of the sort. This process almost never works for old paintings, as the computer program fails to recognise what the true coloration might be.
For the purpose of use in a Wikipedia article, it is not really so important to be ale to see every tiny brushstroke or speck on the surface of a painting. The artist never intended such close scrutiny, and in general, this sort of thing is not discussed in articles, or if it is, then a detail is shown, that reveals the thumbprint, the signature, the brushstrokes etc. Usually, the most important thing is to have the colours registered as accurately as possible.
What can one do about the fact that the previous image was considered "superseded", and this new image has now replaced it in a dozen or more articles?
"La Bièvre" is tilted...--Jebulon 16:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC) You're right : Done. --JLPC 16:40, 23 April 2014 (UTC) "La Bièvre" is no more tilted, and even not pinsharp at 100% view, it is a QI.--Jebulon 19:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
Comment Is the WB OK? Seems a bit blueish to me ... --P e z i 21:33, 24 April 2014 (UTC) Done : you're right. I hope it's better now. --JLPC 12:44, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Support Much better! and QI. --P e z i 17:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)