Commons:Candidatas a imágenes de calidad

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 89% 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Outdated translations are marked like this.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
Saltar a nominaciones

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

Objetivo

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


Directrices

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

Para los nominadores

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

Requisitos de las imágenes
  1. Estado de derecho de autor. Los candidatos de imagen de calidad necesitan estar disponible bajo una licencia apropiada. Vea Commons:Sobre las licencias.
  2. Imágenes deben cumplir con todos los políticas y prácticas de Commons, incluyendo Commons:Fotografías de personas identificables.
  3. Imágenes de calidad tendrán un nombre de archivo significativo, serán categorizadas apropiadamente y tendrán una descripción precisa en la página de archivo en más de uno idioma. Es preferible, pero no es obligatorio, incluir una descripción en inglés.
  4. No habrá publicidades, firmas o marcas de agua en la imagen. Información sobre el autor y el derecho de autor de las imágenes de calidad debe estar ubicada en la página de archivo y se podría estar contenido en los metadatos del archivo, pero no debe interferir con el contenido visual de la imagen.

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

Las imágenes deben haber creado por un Wikimedista para ser eligible para esta etiqueta de calidad. Para dar un ejemplo, esto significa que imágenes que provengan de Flickr no son eligibles. Tenga en cuenta que imágenes destacadas no están sujetas a este requisito. Reproducciones fotográficas de obras de arte bidimensionales, hechas por Wikimedistas, si son eligibles y deben ser marcadas con la licencia apropiada. Si se promoviera una imagen mientras que no fuera la creación de un Wikimedista, se debería quitar la etiqueta de imagen de calidad en cuanto se observaría.


Requisitos técnicos

Criterios más detallados están disponibles en Directrices de imágenes.

Resolución

Imágenes de formato ráster (JPEG, PNG, GIFF, TIFF) serán al mínimo de tamaño 2 megapixels; lectores desearían un tamaño más grande para los sujetos que puedan ser fotografiados fácilmente. Esto es porque las imágenes de Commons pueden usarse para la impresión, para su visualización en monitores de alta resolución, o para utilizarse en medias futuras. Esta norma excluye los gráficos vectoriales (SVG) y imágenes generadas por ordenador y construidas con software libre, lo cual debe ser indicado en la descripción del archivo.

Calidad de las Imágenes

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

Composición e iluminación

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

Valor

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

Cómo nominar

Simplemente agregue una línea de código desde esta forma a la parte superior de la sección de nominaciones: Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

File:Nombre_del_archivo.jpg|{{/Nomination|muy breve descripción  --~~~~ |}}

La descripción no deben incluir más de unas palabras. Favor deje una línea blanca entre la nominación tuya y las demás.

Si usted está nominando una imagen por otro usuario, indique su nombre en la descripción como se indica a continuación:

File:Nombre_del_archivo.jpg|{{/Nomination|Una descripción breve (por [[Usuario:NOMBRE|NOMBRE]]) --~~~~ |}}

Nota: Hay un accesorio que acelera las nominaciones. El accesorio añade un enlace pequeño a la parte superior de cada página de archivo, lo cual se marca "Nómina esta imagen para QI". Al hacer clic, el archivo será agregado a una lista de candidatos guardados de su elección. Al fin de completar la lista, empiece a editar Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. A la parte superior de la página de edición, se mostrará una barra verde. Al hacer clic en la barra, se insertará todos los candidatos guardados a la caja de texto para su conveniencia.

Número de nominaciones

Seleccione detenidamente las imágenes mejores para nominar. No más de cinco imágenes pueden ser nominados por usuario por día.

Note: If possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.

Evaluación de las imágenes

Cualquier usuario registrado, que lleve al menos 10 días, haya realizado 50 ediciones y quién no sea el autor de la obra ni el nominador, puede revisar una nominación.

Cuando un revisor evalúa una imagen debe considerar las mismas directrices que el nominador.

Cómo revisar

Cómo actualizar el estado

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

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

a:

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

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

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

to

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

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

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

Período de gracia y promoción

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

Cómo ejecutar una decisión

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

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

Instrucciones de cerrar candidaturas manualmente (úselas solo en caso de emergencia)

Si se promueve,

  1. Añadir la imagen al grupo o grupos apropiados de páginas Imágenes de Calidad. La imagen también necesita ser añadida a las sub páginas asociadas, sólo 3-4 de las imágenes más nuevas han de ser mostradas en la página principal.
  2. Añadir la plantilla {{QualityImage}}la imagen.
  3. Mover la línea con la nominación de la imagen y la revisión a Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives octubre 2024
  4. Añadir la plantilla {{File:imagename.jpg}} a la página de discusión del usuario.

Si declinaste,

  1. ueve la línea con la nominación de la imagen y la revisión a Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives octubre 2024.
  • Las imágenes que esperan una revisión, se muestran en un recuadro azul.
  • Las imágenes que el revisor ha aceptado se muestran en un recuadro verde.
  • Las imágenes que el revisor ha aceptado se muestran en un recuadro rojo.

Imágenes no asignadas (recuadro azul)

Las imágenes nominadas que no han sido promovidas ni declinadas, o acabaron en consenso (hubo igual número de oposiciones y apoyos) tras 8 días en esta página deberían ser borradas de esta página sin promoción, archivadas en Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 23 2024 y añadirle a la imagen la Category:Unassessed QI candidates.

Proceso de revisión de consenso

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

Cómo preguntar por la revisión de consenso

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

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

Revisión de las reglas de consenso

Ver Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Actualización de la página: purge this page's cache


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]] 21:16, 23 octubre 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, y 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)

Tabla del tiempo (día 8 tras la nominación)

  • mar 15 oct → mié 23 oct
  • mié 16 oct → jue 24 oct
  • jue 17 oct → vie 25 oct
  • vie 18 oct → sáb 26 oct
  • sáb 19 oct → dom 27 oct
  • dom 20 oct → lun 28 oct
  • lun 21 oct → mar 29 oct
  • mar 22 oct → mié 30 oct
  • mié 23 oct → jue 31 oct