Commons:優質圖像評選

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Quality images candidates and the translation is 98% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Quality images candidates and have to be approved by a translation administrator.
Outdated translations are marked like this.
Shortcut
跳至提名

下列圖像正在參評優質圖像。 請注意,這與特色圖片不同。 如果您只是想為自己的攝影作品徵求些非正式的反饋意見,請前往Commons:Photography critiques

目的

優質圖像旨在鼓勵維基共享資源的根基——個人用戶——為共享資源貢獻獨特的圖像。 「特色圖像」被認定是維基共享資源所有圖像中最好的圖片,而「優質圖像」目的則是認可和鼓勵用戶為維基共享資源提供優質圖像作出的努力。 此外,如果用戶想了解如何改善自己的圖片,優質圖像也可用來參考。


指引

所有的候選圖像都應是本站用戶的工作成果。

如何提名

以下是優質圖片的一般性準則,更詳細的指引可見圖像指引

圖像頁面要求

  1. 版權狀態。參與評選的優質圖像需以合適的版權協議上傳至維基共享資源。完整的版權協議要求在Commons:著作權標籤
  2. 圖像應對符合所有的共享資源方針和慣例,包括Commons:可辨識的人物照片
  3. 優質圖像的文件名必須有意義分類必須恰當,文件頁的圖像描述(至少一種語言)必須準確。我們建議給圖像撰寫英文描述,但這不是強制性要求。
  4. 優質圖像嚴禁廣告宣傳和簽名。優質圖像的版權和作者信息應當記錄在文件頁,也可以放在文件的元數據中,但不應直接出現在圖像本身里。

作者
Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

圖片原作者必須為維基媒體用戶,以確保擁有優質圖像的資格。這意味著來自諸如Flicker的圖片不符合資格。(需注意特色圖片無此要求) 維基媒體用戶製作的二維藝術品的攝影複製品符合評選資格(並應根據共享資源指引以PD-old授權)。 如果有非維基人創作的圖像通過評選,應在發現錯誤後儘快將改圖像從「優質圖像」中除名。


技術要求

請參閱Commons:圖像指引了解更詳細的標準。

解析度

通常情況下,點陣圖(如JPEG、PNG、GIF、TIFF)應至少有200萬像素。如果攝影對象很容易捕捉,評審者可依情況要求候選圖像解析度比200萬像素更高。這是因為人們可能列印、用高解析度顯示器查看或進一步使用共享資源上的圖像。矢量圖(SVG)和自由版權或開源軟體生成圖像不受本規則的限制。

圖像質量

數字圖像在圖像捕捉和處理的過程中可能出現種種問題,比如可避免的躁點、JPEG圖像壓縮、亮部與暗部圖像不明晰、顏色捕捉不準確等。候選圖片不應存在任何這類問題。

構圖和照明

攝影主體的排布應當有助於展示圖像內容。前景、背景的物件不應分散觀賞者的注意力。光照、焦距也應安排恰當,讓攝影主體銳利、整潔,曝光得恰到好處。

價值

我們的主要目標是鼓勵在維基共享資源里上傳優質圖像,幫助提升各維基媒體計劃和其他計劃的質量。

提名方法

您只需在Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list「提名」(Nominations)一節中加入類似如下的代碼:

File:文件名.jpg|{{/Nomination|简短描述  --~~~~ |}}

圖片描述不應該超過幾句話。請在您的新提名和已存在的提名之間保留一個空行。

如果您打算提名其他維基媒體用戶的圖像,請仿照下方格式,在提名中提及原創作者的用戶名:

File:文件名.jpg|{{/Nomination|简短描述(作者:[[User:用户名|用户名]])--~~~~ |}}

注意:使用「優質圖像提名工具(QInominator)」這個小工具可以提高提名的效率。 該工具會在所有文件頁頂部加入「提名此圖像為優質圖像」(Nominate this image for QI)按鈕。點擊按鈕後,該圖像會被加到您的優質圖像候選列中。您遴選完後,請編輯Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list,編輯框上方會出現一個綠色橫幅,點擊該橫幅會將您候選列中的全部候選圖片批量加入到編輯框裡。

提名數目

每位用戶一天最多提名五張圖像。

註:請每提名一副圖像後,儘量評審至少一副其他用戶提名的圖像。

評審圖像

任何註冊10天、編輯50筆以上的註冊用戶,除作者和提名者外,都可以進行評審。QICvote小工具可以加快您的評審進程。

在評審圖像時,評審者應與提名者遵守同一圖像指引

如何評審

如何更新狀態

仔細評估圖像,以完全解析度打開,並檢查其是否符合質量標準

  • 如果您認為該圖像符合優質圖像的標準,請將對應圖像的代碼從
File:文件名.jpg|{{/Nomination|简短描述 --~~~~ |}}

改為

File:文件名.jpg|{{/Promotion|简短描述 --提名者签名 |喜欢它的理由。 --~~~~}}

也就是說,將模板的/Nomination改為/Promotion,並附上您的簽名。您還可以加入一些簡要的評論。

  • 如果您認為該圖像不符合優質圖像的標準,請將對應圖像的代碼從
File:文件名.jpg|{{/Nomination|简短描述 --~~~~ |}}

改為

File:文件名.jpg|{{/Decline|简短描述 --提名者签名 |不喜欢它的理由。 --~~~~}}

也就是說,將模板的/Nomination改為/Decline,並附上您的簽名。您還可以加入一些簡要的評論,指明為何該圖像不符合標準(可以引用指引里的章節標題)。 如果圖像存在多個問題,請只點出2-3個最明顯的問題,或者留言「多個問題」。在指明圖像不達標時,請在提名人的討論頁里解釋為何您認為圖像不符合標準——請記得遵守規則,保持友善、鼓勵他人!討論頁里的留言應詳細闡述您做出「圖像不達標」這一決定的原因。

註:請優先評審最早的圖片提名。

寬限期與評審通過方式

自候選圖像獲得的第一個評審起計算,2天(48小時)內如沒有反對意見,該圖像將依照該評審意見自動記為合格或不合格。如果您有反對意見,只需將候選圖像的狀態改為「討論」(Discuss),這樣候選圖像會被自動列入「共識評審」(Consensual review)一節。

執行決定

QICbot會在評審決定完成後2日內自動運作,將獲選圖像列入Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted中。這些圖像隨後會被分類並加入到合適的優質圖像頁面。

如果您留意到有些圖像質量極為優秀,請考慮提名特色圖像

人工操作說明 (僅限緊急情況下使用)

如果當選優質圖片,

  1. 將圖像加入優質圖像頁面合適的組別(可以有多個組別),以及這些組別對應的子頁面。主頁面應只保留3至4張最新圖像。
  2. 在當選圖像的文件頁底部掛{{QualityImage}}模板。
  3. 將提名辭、評審結果存檔到Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives 10月 2024
  4. {{File:當選圖像文件名.jpg}}加入到用戶的討論頁。

如果落選優質圖片,

  1. 將提名辭、評審結果存檔到Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives 10月 2024
  • 等待評審的圖像,其評審信息用藍色邊框標示。
  • 評審者認定合格的圖像,其評審信息用綠色邊框標示。
  • 評審者認為不合格的圖像,其評審信息用紅色邊框標示。

無評審結果的圖像(用藍框標註)

如果在提名開始後的8日內,候選圖像沒有得到任何支持/反對票,或在共識評審中未能達成共識,該圖像將不會被列入優質圖像中,而是從候選列表中移除、存檔至Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 23 2024,並列入Category:Unassessed QI candidates

共識評審過程

共識評審(Consensual review)是指在以上步驟不足以達成共識的情況下所進行的討論,以吸引更多人加入並給出自己的評審意見。

如何發起共識評審

如需發起共識評審,只需將代碼中的/Promotion, /Decline改為/Discuss,並在評審文字後加入您的評論。機器人會在一日內將該討論移入共識評審區。

只有處於「promoted」或「declined」狀態下的討論才能被記入共識評審中。如果評審員無法做出決定,可以只留評論但不明確表態提名通過與否。

共識評審規則

Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

刷新頁面: purge this page's cache


Nominations

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures will only work on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 21:19, 23 10月 2024 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


October 23, 2024

October 22, 2024

October 21, 2024

October 20, 2024

October 19, 2024

October 18, 2024

October 17, 2024

October 16, 2024

October 15, 2024

October 14, 2024

October 13, 2024

October 12, 2024

October 11, 2024

October 10, 2024

October 8, 2024

October 7, 2024

October 5, 2024

October 4, 2024

October 2, 2024

Consensual review

Rules

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

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



File:Pyongyang_metro_3.JPG

  • Nomination Metro enterence in Pyongyang, North Korea (by Kristoferb) --Kristoferb 13:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ptrump16 19:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC) Vote of a confirmed sockpuppet crossed out --Jakubhal 17:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
 Info I have prepared the checkuser request as both nominator and promotor use the same camera, software, uploads similar photos of recent trip to North Korea --Jakubhal 16:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Burned sky and minor perspective distortion --Jakubhal 04:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 06:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose multiple issues.--Peulle 07:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Часовня_на_рассвете.jpg

  • Nomination Chapel and sunrise (by Евгений774) --FBilula 13:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ReneeWrites 15:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much Flares in the Photographs. --Amitabha Gupta 17:40, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
That's the sun. ReneeWrites 12:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Главный_корпус_Почтового_отделения_Петергоф_лето_2024_04.png

  • Nomination Post office (by Никонико962) --FBilula 13:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Saturation boosted to unnatural levels --ReneeWrites 15:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Montréal–Trudeau_airport_terminal_viewed_airside_from_abroad_an_Austrian_Airlines_B767-300ER.jpg

  • Nomination Original 1960s-era terminal building of Montreal International Airport viewed from the tarmac viewed from aboard parked jet --Ptrump16 03:16, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Far too overprocessed, sorry. --XtraJovial 00:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • No adjustments was done aside from straightening. Your issue is with Mother Nature. --Ptrump16 19:27, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. --Sebring12Hrs 06:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unclear subject; building is leaning right, engine is cut off...--Peulle 08:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's unclear what the subject is, and the vignetting is very distracting. Imo not fixable. --Smial 10:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Schloss_Heidelberg,_Schlosshof.jpg

  • Nomination Heidelberg castle, courtyard --Plozessor 02:45, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Person in left bottom corner spoils the composition --Michielverbeek 06:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I disagree, what do others think? @Michielverbeek:​ If you stay with your opinion, please decline it so that I can send it to discussion. --Plozessor 14:33, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cut off person in bottom right corner. I'm not too bothered by the left; it's hard to avoid people in public locations.--Peulle 08:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
@Peulle:​ Cropped the poor guy off. --Plozessor 19:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Петергоф,_Александрия,_Капелла,_детали_22.jpg

  • Nomination Window of Saint Alexander Nevsky Church, Alexandria park, Peterhof, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 01:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Perspective should be fixed, otherwise ok. --Plozessor 02:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Isn't it still clearly leaning in on the left side? --Plozessor 04:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I think that it is not. See the line on the right side that is vertical. It's corner window and I can't make the left side more vertical without unrealistic distortion of the image --Екатерина Борисова 16:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I still think the right side is vertical but the left side is heavily leaning in. Feel free to move it to discussions so that we can hear other opinions. --Plozessor 14:02, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • OK. I don't want to argue, but just curious what others have to say. --Екатерина Борисова 14:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The left is leaning in, but there's also an issue with level of detail. --Peulle 08:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good photo. I don't miss any details, I can even see the peeling paint. -- Spurzem 12:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

File:20230107_Johannisfriedhof_Nürnberg_03.jpg

  • Nomination The Memorial stele of Wolfgang Münzer on the Johannis Church Cemetery in Nuremberg --FlocciNivis 16:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Good motif but unfortunately below the quality limit for QI --Ermell 20:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for me. --XtraJovial 00:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image sharpness is undoubtedly good enough in the center, but decreases significantly towards the edges of the image. The lens used may not be well suited for photos of architecture, landscapes or the like, where uniform image quality is important. It may help to switch the camera to APS-C format for critical subjects. There are also dust spots. --Smial 12:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now because there are really many dust spots. Otherwise could be acceptable since the subject is sharp enough and I like the composition. --Plozessor 13:58, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp outside the center, and several large dust spots. I'm sorry to oppose as I believe this is an good composition. --Benjism89 21:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Tussen_Leeheim_en_Wolfskehlen,_standbeeld_bij_ingang_Kiawah_Golfpark_Riedstadt_IMG_1242_2024-05-23_11.57.jpg

  • Nomination between Leeheim and Wolfskehlen in Hessen, statue at the entry of Kiawah Golfpark Riedstadt --Michielverbeek 06:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Insufficient quality: too soft IMO. --Peulle 06:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I will redevelop the photo Tuesday or Wednesday and hope it's looking better --Michielverbeek 07:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks ok to me. --Ermell 08:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I wait a while for more reviews --Michielverbeek 06:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me. --MB-one (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too soft and grainy at the same time. Probably fixable with better raw conversion. --Plozessor 13:59, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --MB-one 07:05, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Gebhards_Hotel,_Göttingen_(P1140800).jpg

  • Nomination Gebhards Hotel in Göttingen --MB-one 21:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Needs PC (top bulging out); a bit dark --Tagooty 03:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Thanks for the review --MB-one 20:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    i've made an correction @MB-one, please take a look --Grunpfnul 17:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for the adjustments! --MB-one 10:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Tagooty 11:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Lacks good description, was lacking good categorization --Wikisquack 20:28, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • @Wikisquack:​ ✓ Done improved description and categorization. --MB-one 07:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 11:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 23:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Bacardi_Spiced_Rum_01.jpg

  • Nomination Bacardi Spiced Rum 750ml: --Indrajitdas 12:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Disturbing element at the bottom left, it needs a perspective correcion the upper part of the bottle is wider than the lower part --Poco a poco 15:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the input and it's been corrected according to your input. - ~~~~ --Indrajitdas 21:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Bottom edges of the bottle aren't sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 09:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The bottle was photographed from a very unfavourable angle and apparently from a short distance. This makes the neck of the bottle appear too wide and looks as if it is bent backwards. -- Spurzem 21:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem, too short distance, with a result not adequate for a studio shot. --Plozessor 04:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Close_wing_Nectering_of_Danaus_genutia_(Cramer,_1779)_-_Striped_Tiger_WLB.jpg

  • Nomination Close wing Nectering of Danaus genutia (Cramer, 1779) - Striped Tiger. By User:Anitava Roy --Atudu 15:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --RockyMasum 06:33, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. The head is blurry and the other parts of the butterfly are almost without any detail. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Completly blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 09:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Only few halfway sharp areas, majority is blurred / out of focus. --Plozessor 04:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Neo_Gothic_Church_in_Murten_Switzerland_by_Robbie_Conceptuel.png_

  • Nomination Neo Gothic Church in Murten in Switzerland Conceptuel 14:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 07:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think that it lacks details. --Екатерина Борисова 01:20, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree. --Sebring12Hrs 07:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Indeed, the weather vane is cut off, and the cropping at the bottom is also very tight. But otherwise I think the picture is very good and I don't miss any details. Therefore my weak "pro". -- Spurzem 10:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not sharp and cropped too tightly. --Benjism89 17:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overall quality is borderline in the first place (we don't have EXIF data but it looks like a smartphone picture taken under non-ideal weather conditions). Then it's slightly distorted (see the door of the church) and then there's the tight crop. --Plozessor 04:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 04:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Bremerhaven,_Neuer_Hafen_--_2024_--_2168.jpg

  • Nomination New harbour and tour boat 「Hein Mück」, Bremerhaven, Bremen, Germany --XRay 02:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 03:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Image could be improved with a tighter crop that excludes the distracting boat cut-in-half on the right.This allows stronger focus on both lighthouse and ship (marked with note). --GRDN711 00:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I'll have a look at it in the next few days when I have access to my photos again. --XRay 04:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
@GRDN711:​ If you disagree with an existing promotion, move the item to discussion, don't just comment. (I don't find the half boat on the right disturbing.) --Plozessor 04:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
@Plozessor:​ I don’t disagree with the existing promotion as overall this is a quality image. I do feel it could be stronger with a little tighter cropping (IMHO the boat chopped-in-half on the right is disturbing and does not add to the image topic). I added a comment to the existing promotion as the best response that represents my intent. The overall status of the image remains 「Support with comment」, with XRay given the option to act on the comment or not. As there is no Oppose, IMO this image should not have been moved to consensual review. --GRDN711 16:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
@GRDN711:​ But with your comment you undid the promotion and reset the picture to nomination. I think the helper does that when you comment on an already promoted picture; you should manually edit the source instead. --Plozessor 04:20, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
@Plozessor:​ I did not undo the promotion. After my comment (which should not have changed to an "oppose"), the QI status of this image was "Support woth comment". As far as resetting the image nomination, this is an artifact of the evaluation voting app and has been documented previously. I would encourage you to work with the developers to improve the app.
  •  Support Good for me -- Spurzem 10:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • @GRDN711、​Plozessor、​和Spurzem:​ ✓ Done The file has now been cropped - a little bit and without the proposed cropped elements at the left. The position of the ship now takes the golden spiral into account. If I may make a comment: I am always happy to receive suggestions. It is quite difficult if the photo has already been positively evaluated. It is also difficult to reset the nomination status. A comment without changing the status would have sufficed in my opinion. Now the rating is up for discussion, in my opinion rather unnecessarily. But I hope that the changed crop will be received positively. --XRay 05:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support with cropping changes. --GRDN711 (talk) 04:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support As cropped --Scotch Mist 11:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --XRay 05:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Самарканд,_Алексеевский_собор,_киот.jpg

  • Nomination Icon case with the icon at the wall of the Alexeyevsky cathedral at 1, Bobur Mirzo street, Samarqand, Uzbekistan. --Красный 09:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 09:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose How it can be QI, did you notice all the noise and CAs ? I don't understand... --Sebring12Hrs 10:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blur, CA, perspective. --Plozessor 05:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not really sharp and CA. --Benjism89 17:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose As per others --Scotch Mist 10:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --MB-one 07:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Closing_ceremony,_Wikimania_2024,_Katowice_(WM246080).jpg

  • Nomination Closing ceremony of Wikimania 2024 in Katowice --MB-one 10:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose imho not QI --GiovanniPen 16:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
@GiovanniPen:​ Can you please state your reason? --MB-one 07:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose May be a bit blurry. Even the singers are not very sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 14:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Nothing really sharp, also non-ideal angle (contributing to the lack of DoF). --Plozessor 05:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

File:سد_ميشليفن_من_سطح_مستشفى_بن_صميم.jpg

  • Nomination A dam and a Michlifen Dam, agricultural lands and oak forest, from the rural commune of Bensemim in the Moroccan Middle Atlas. --User:Mounir Neddi 10:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Moving unassessed pictures to discussions is against the rules! --Plozessor 05:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately, this is not the first case, see another nomination below. -- Екатерина Борисова 16:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Very good lights and compo, but poor sharpness. --Sebring12Hrs 17:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

File:Castle_of_Najac_24.jpg

  • Nomination Castle of Najac (by Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 16:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  OpposeThe perspective is overprocessed. The walls looks to be leaning outwards. --Vsatinet 21:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
 Comment I can't see anything leaning. The walls are straight to me. Other opinion ? --Sebring12Hrs 08:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Moving to CR. --Sebring12Hrs 07:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  • The walls of the towers in the frame are completely vertical, and because of this, the perspective seems unnatural for a low shooting point. --Vsatinet 11:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment So I don't understand why we correct perspective... --Sebring12Hrs 17:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support "The walls of the towers in the frame are completely vertical" which actually is a criteria for QI (unless there's a good reason for a different perspective). To me it seems that the tower walls themselves are leaning outwards and the picture is perfectly fine. Also otherwise the quality is very good. --Plozessor 06:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
 Comment "The walls of the towers on the picture are completely vertical" and "it seems that the tower walls themselves are leaning outwards" - I think this is a contradiction and a sign of incorrect perspective on picture. If towers actually leaning themself - they must be leaning on picture and wise versa - if towers are vertical themself they must seems vertical on picture. BTW on other pictures of this castle towers doesn't seems leaning out. This is one of those cases where a wide-angle shot requires more complex perspective correction than just making all the lines vertical to make it look natural. Vsatinet 10:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
I just quoted you. As I see it, the walls of the castle (main building) are vertical in reality and on the picture. The walls of the towers are crooked in reality and on the picture. In any case, there's nothing 100 % vertical in mediaeval buildings - if some walls on a picture are vertical while others are not, it's usually not a photographic error but the walls are simply crooked in reality. --Plozessor 03:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I'll try explain my point. Sorry for long summary and my english.
  1. The shot is taken with wide angle lens (see EXIF if that isn't clear) from point which is close to the object and lower than object. Obviously lines that themself are vertical or near vertical, are leaned inward on original shot.
  2. On this picture all vertical lines are absolutely straight, and for main building and for towers (except closest to camera angle between walls which is slightly crook). It's easy to check with rulers in any photoeditor. That is, the perspective in this picture has been corrected.
  3. As a result outsite walls of towers seems for me leaned outwards (and for you too, as I understand). But we can't know are they actually leaned or no. In my humble experience I am almost certain that this visual effect is the result of correction and not the actual view of the castle themself (see above about contradiction between all completely vertical lines and towers that seem to lean outward). And as I noted above, I didn't see this effect on others shots of this castle.
  4. In any case the result seems for me unnatural for this point of shooting.
And by the way may first remark here was comment, not vote for declain. I just noted that perspective on this picture seems unnatural (assuming it may be possibly fixed), but if this correspond to QI criteria - OK, let it correspond. Vsatinet 20:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
About the first comment, if you didn't decline then the image should not have been moved to discussions. "We can't know are they [the towers] actually learned or no[t]", indeed, but usually everything in mediaeval buildings is leaned and crooked and nothing is straight and vertical. --Plozessor 04:26, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you. But commoners decided. --Sebring12Hrs 12:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose per Vsatinet. It's not badly distorted, but anyway looks unrealistic due to perspective correction. -- Екатерина Борисова 16:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
 Comment But the castle is exactly like that in reality, I don't understand.... --Sebring12Hrs 18:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
 Comment I really don't understand and I will be more severe with some pictures from now on. --Sebring12Hrs 09:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
 Comment @Sebring12Hrs This case is borderline to me but as a general statement : I also do believe that strong PC applied on pictures of buildings and structures creates something really unnatural to one's eyes. In this case, a strong PC was needed because of the large focal length and position of the photographer (under the base of the castle). Of course, the lines here are vertical, but the difference between what we can all see through our eyes and the geometry of strongly-PCed pictures creates the impression that this building has a weird shape, leaning out on both sides. That's why I stopped candidating for QI with architecture pictures taken with a wide angle (and upload to Commons both a PCed and non-PCed version of those pictures as I can't choose which one is best). --Benjism89 17:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Thanks a lot for this extremely useful comment. -- Екатерина Борисова 21:52, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Declined   --Peulle 07:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

File:At Geneva 2024 470 - Tram at Ponts de l'Île.jpg

  • Nomination Tram at Ponts de l'Île, Geneva --Mike Peel 07:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Unclear subject of photo. If it's the tram then it's not very prominent. --AVDLCZ 09:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. The image, description and categories mention both the tram and the bridge's name. And the picture clearly shows the bridge with a tram on it. --ArildV 10:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment If we're strict then the file name does not meet the requirements in Commons:File naming (like most of Mike's pictures). I suggest to rename at least the QI candidates to something meaningful. Otherwise, this is a smartphone picture of borderline quality, but IMO it would be above the bar. I would support it with a proper filename. --Plozessor (talk) 07:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Plozessor. --Sebring12Hrs 17:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
 Support Thx, otherwise the picture is good (at least for a smartphone image). --Plozessor 09:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --Peulle 07:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

時間表(提名後8天)

  • 二 15 10月 → 三 23 10月
  • 三 16 10月 → 四 24 10月
  • 四 17 10月 → 五 25 10月
  • 五 18 10月 → 六 26 10月
  • 六 19 10月 → 日 27 10月
  • 日 20 10月 → 一 28 10月
  • 一 21 10月 → 二 29 10月
  • 二 22 10月 → 三 30 10月
  • 三 23 10月 → 四 31 10月