Commons:优质图像评选

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Outdated translations are marked like this.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

下列图像正在参评优质图像。 请注意,这与特色图片不同。 如果您只是想为自己的摄影作品征求些非正式的反馈意见,请前往Commons:Photography critiques

目的

优质图像旨在鼓励维基共享资源的根基——个人用户——为共享资源贡献独特的图像。 “特色图像”被认定是维基共享资源所有图像中最好的图片,而“优质图像”目的则是认可和鼓励用户为维基共享资源提供优质图像作出的努力。 此外,如果用户想了解如何改善自己的图片,优质图像也可用来参考。


指引

所有的候选图像都应是本站用户的工作成果。

如何提名

以下是优质图片的一般性准则,更详细的指引可见图像指引

图像页面要求

  1. 版权状态。参与评选的优质图像需以合适的版权协议上传至维基共享资源。完整的版权协议要求在Commons:著作权标签
  2. 图像应对符合所有的共享资源方针和惯例,包括Commons:可辨识的人物照片
  3. 优质图像的文件名必须有意义分类必须恰当,文件页的图像描述(至少一种语言)必须准确。我们建议给图像撰写英文描述,但这不是强制性要求。
  4. 优质图像严禁广告宣传和签名。优质图像的版权和作者信息应当记录在文件页,也可以放在文件的元数据中,但不应直接出现在图像本身里。

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

图片原作者必须为维基媒体用户,以确保拥有优质图像的资格。这意味着来自诸如Flicker的图片不符合资格。(需注意特色图片无此要求) 维基媒体用户制作的二维艺术品的摄影复制品符合评选资格(并应根据共享资源指引以PD-old授权)。 如果有非维基人创作的图像通过评选,应在发现错误后尽快将改图像从“优质图像”中除名。


技术要求

请参阅Commons:图像指引了解更详细的标准。

分辨率

通常情况下,点阵图(如JPEG、PNG、GIF、TIFF)应至少有200万像素。如果摄影对象很容易捕捉,评审者可依情况要求候选图像分辨率比200万像素更高。这是因为人们可能打印、用高分辨率显示器查看或进一步使用共享资源上的图像。矢量图(SVG)和自由版权或开源软件生成图像不受本规则的限制。

图像质量

数字图像在图像捕捉和处理的过程中可能出现种种问题,比如可避免的躁点、JPEG图像压缩、亮部与暗部图像不明晰、颜色捕捉不准确等。候选图片不应存在任何这类问题。

构图和照明

摄影主体的排布应当有助于展示图像内容。前景、背景的物件不应分散观赏者的注意力。光照、焦距也应安排恰当,让摄影主体锐利、整洁,曝光得恰到好处。

价值

我们的主要目标是鼓励在维基共享资源里上传优质图像,帮助提升各维基媒体计划和其他计划的质量。

提名方法

您只需在Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list“提名”(Nominations)一节中加入类似如下的代码:

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

图片描述不应该超过几句话。请在您的新提名和已存在的提名之间保留一个空行。

如果您打算提名其他维基媒体用户的图像,请仿照下方格式,在提名中提及原创作者的用户名:

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

注意:使用“优质图像提名工具(QInominator)”这个小工具可以提高提名的效率。 该工具会在所有文件页顶部加入“提名此图像为优质图像”(Nominate this image for QI)按钮。点击按钮后,该图像会被加到您的优质图像候选列中。您遴选完后,请编辑Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list,编辑框上方会出现一个绿色横幅,点击该横幅会将您候选列中的全部候选图片批量加入到编辑框里。

提名数目

每位用户一天最多提名五张图像。

注:请每提名一副图像后,尽量评审至少一副其他用户提名的图像。

评审图像

任何注册10天、编辑50笔以上的注册用户,除作者和提名者外,都可以进行评审。QICvote小工具可以加快您的评审进程。

在评审图像时,评审者应与提名者遵守同一图像指引

如何评审

如何更新状态

仔细评估图像,以完全分辨率打开,并检查其是否符合质量标准

  • 如果您认为该图像符合优质图像的标准,请将对应图像的代码从
File:文件名.jpg|{{/Nomination|简短描述 --~~~~ |}}

改为

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

也就是说,将模板的/Nomination改为/Promotion,并附上您的签名。您还可以加入一些简要的评论。

  • 如果您认为该图像不符合优质图像的标准,请将对应图像的代码从
File:文件名.jpg|{{/Nomination|简短描述 --~~~~ |}}

改为

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

也就是说,将模板的/Nomination改为/Decline,并附上您的签名。您还可以加入一些简要的评论,指明为何该图像不符合标准(可以引用指引里的章节标题)。 如果图像存在多个问题,请只点出2-3个最明显的问题,或者留言“多个问题”。在指明图像不达标时,请在提名人的讨论页里解释为何您认为图像不符合标准——请记得遵守规则,保持友善、鼓励他人!讨论页里的留言应详细阐述您做出“图像不达标”这一决定的原因。

注:请优先评审最早的图片提名。

宽限期与评审通过方式

自候选图像获得的第一个评审起计算,2天(48小时)内如没有反对意见,该图像将依照该评审意见自动记为合格或不合格。如果您有反对意见,只需将候选图像的状态改为“讨论”(Discuss),这样候选图像会被自动列入“共识评审”(Consensual review)一节。

执行决定

QICbot会在评审决定完成后2日内自动运作,将获选图像列入Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted中。这些图像随后会被分类并加入到合适的优质图像页面。

如果您留意到有些图像质量极为优秀,请考虑提名特色图像

人工操作说明 (仅限紧急情况下使用)

如果当选优质图片,

  1. 将图像加入优质图像页面合适的组别(可以有多个组别),以及这些组别对应的子页面。主页面应只保留3至4张最新图像。
  2. 在当选图像的文件页底部挂{{QualityImage}}模板。
  3. 将提名辞、评审结果存档到Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives 10月 2024
  4. {{File:当选图像文件名.jpg}}加入到用户的讨论页。

如果落选优质图片,

  1. 将提名辞、评审结果存档到Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives 10月 2024
  • 等待评审的图像,其评审信息用蓝色边框标示。
  • 评审者认定合格的图像,其评审信息用绿色边框标示。
  • 评审者认为不合格的图像,其评审信息用红色边框标示。

无评审结果的图像(用蓝框标注)

如果在提名开始后的8日内,候选图像没有得到任何支持/反对票,或在共识评审中未能达成共识,该图像将不会被列入优质图像中,而是从候选列表中移除、存档至Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives October 23 2024,并列入Category:Unassessed QI candidates

共识评审过程

共识评审(Consensual review)是指在以上步骤不足以达成共识的情况下所进行的讨论,以吸引更多人加入并给出自己的评审意见。

如何发起共识评审

如需发起共识评审,只需将代码中的/Promotion, /Decline改为/Discuss,并在评审文字后加入您的评论。机器人会在一日内将该讨论移入共识评审区。

只有处于“promoted”或“declined”状态下的讨论才能被记入共识评审中。如果评审员无法做出决定,可以只留评论但不明确表态提名通过与否。

共识评审规则

Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

刷新页面: 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]] 19:25, 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 brigther 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)

时间表(提名后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