Commons:良質な画像の推薦

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 96% 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Outdated translations are marked like this.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
推薦一覧に移動

ここは「良質な画像」を選定するため候補画像を集めたページです。 「秀逸な画像」とは違う事に注意して下さい。 加えて、自身の投稿した写真について何か意見(フィードバック)がほしいならば、コモンズ:写真の批評で見ることができます。

目的

「良質な画像」の目的は、コモンズの活動の基盤となっている人々、すなわちコレクションの拡大につながる独特の画像を提供している個々の利用者を応援することにあります。 「秀逸な画像」がコモンズにアップロードされた作品を最高峰を示すのに対し、「良質な画像」は良質な写真をコモンズに登録するよう、利用者に呼びかけ力づけることを目指します。 加えて良質な画像のページは、特定の画像の質を上げるよう他の利用者に例を示す場所としても使われるべきです。


ガイドライン

良質な画像への推薦はコモンズユーザー自身が作成したものに限ります。

画像を推薦する方へ

以下の説明は良質な画像への全般的なガイドラインです。より詳しい評価基準は画像のガイドラインを参照して下さい。

画像に要求されるもの
  1. 著作権の状況。良質な画像の候補作は適合するライセンスを添えてコモンズに投稿しなければなりません。ライセンスの要件全文はCommons:コピーライト・タグをご参照ください。
  2. 画像はすべてコモンズの方針と慣例に従うものとし、Commons:識別可能な人物の写真も対象です。
  3. 良質な画像には意味のあるファイル名をつけ、適切なカテゴリに分類し、ファイルページに1つ以上の言語で的確な説明を書くものとします。必須条件ではありませんが、英語による説明を添えてください。
  4. 画像に広告や宣伝が入っていないこと。著作権と著作者情報は画像のページに配置し、画像のメタデータに含めることも可能ですが、画像の内容に干渉しないようにします。

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

良質な画像の審査対象になるには、作者がウィキメディアンである必要があります。その意味するところは、たとえば Flickr からインポートした画像は対象外です。(秀逸な画像にはこの制限はありません。) 二次元の美術品を再現した写真作品はウィキメディアンが作家の場合は対象です(そしてコモンズのガイドラインに従い、PD-oldでライセンスされるべきです)。 もし作者がウィキメディアンではないのに画像が選出された場合は、間違いが発見された時点で速やかに良質な画像の資格を外す必要があります。


撮影技術

さらに詳細な評価基準はイメージガイドラインを参照して下さい。

解像度

ビットマック画像 (JPEG、PNG、GIF、TIFF) は通常、サイズが2 メガピクセル以上ひつようです。審査者は撮影が楽な画像について、もっと大きなサイズを要求する場合があります。 理由はコモンズに登録された画像はプリントアウトしたり解像度の非常に高いモニターに投影したり、あるいは将来的に開発されるメディアで使用される可能性があります。この規則はベクター画像 (SVG) やコンピュータで合成した画像でフリーライセンスの適用対象もしくはオープンソフトウェアプログラムを利用し、なおかつ画像の説明に明記したものは対象外です。

画像品質

デジタル画像は取り込みや処理において様々な問題が生じている可能性があります。予防可能なノイズ、JPEG圧縮の際の問題、シャドウ、ハイライト部分の情報不足、色の取り込みにおける問題、これらの問題はすべて正しく処理されている必要があります。

構図と照明効果

画像内の主題の配置は画像に役立つ位置に置くべきです。前景と背景の物がじゃまになっていてはいけません。照明とピントも相対的な評価に直結します。主題はピントがシャープで、ごちゃごちゃせず露光が十分である必要があります。

価値観点

我々の目標は、コモンズを通して行われる、ウィキメディアの他のプロジェクト群において有用となる良質な画像の投稿を、奨励することにあります。

推薦方法

Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list の候補画像リストの節に以下の行を追記するだけで推薦することが可能です。

File:画像名.jpg|{{/Nomination|簡潔に画像の説明を記入  --~~~~ |}}

画像の説明は簡単で構いません。また、ひとつ前の候補画像との間には何もない行を一行残しておいてください。

自分以外のウィキメディアンの画像を推薦する場合、作者の利用者名を以下の例のように説明文内に示してください

File:画像名.jpg|{{/Nomination|数語の画像説明 (投票者[[User:利用者名|利用者名]]) --~~~~ |}}

ご注意:推薦の手順を簡略化するガジェットとして QInominator があります。 ファイルページの上部に「この画像を良質な画像に推薦する」というリンクが小さく表示されます。このリンクを押すと、画像は候補一覧に追加されます。この一覧が済んだらCommons:Quality images candidates/candidate listを編集します。編集ウィンドウの上部に表示される緑色の棒をクリックすると、条件を満たす候補作がすべて、編集窓に加わります。

推薦数

一度に選べる枚数はひとり当たり1日5点以内です。

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

画像評価

評価するには登録ユーザーで、なおかつ登録後10日以上経過し、編集回数50回以上であること、作者でも推薦者でもないことを満たすと資格があります。QICvoteガジェットを有効化すると、より簡単に評価することができます。

評価者は推薦者と同様に画像のガイドラインを基準に画像の評価をしてください。

評価方法

状態の更新方法

画像の評価は慎重に行って下さい。画像は等倍サイズで開き、品質基準を満たしているかどうかを確認して下さい。

  • その画像が品質を満たしていると判断したら、下記のように該当箇所を書き換えます。
File:画像名.jpg|{{/Nomination| 数語の画像説明 --~~~~ |}}

から以下に書き換えます。

File:画像名.jpg|{{/Promotion| 画像説明 --推薦者署名 | 評価理由 --~~~~ }}

つまりテンプレートを /Nomination から /Promotion へ切り替え、署名をし、可能ならコメントを記入するのみです。

  • 画像が基準を満たしていないと判断した場合は、下記の様に書き換えます。
File:画像名.jpg|{{/Nomination| 数語の画像説明 --~~~~ |}}

から以下に書き換えます。

File:画像名.jpg|{{/Decline| 画像説明 --推薦者署名 | 評価理由 --~~~~ }}

言い換えると、テンプレートを/Nomination から /Decline に変更して利用者の著名を付与、落選した画像の分類を示す文を付け加えることもできます (ガイドラインから節の題名を利用)。 もし問題が多い場合は最も深刻な順に2点もしくは3点に絞り込むか、複数の問題あり と提示してください。推薦作を落選とする場合は、理由を推薦者のトークページに記入します – 規則として丁寧な文面で読んだ人を勇気づけることです。そのメッセージには決定の詳細を説明します。

注意:推薦日の古い順に審査し、可能な限り自分が推薦した点数と少なくとも同数の作品を評価してください。

評価猶予期間から決定まで

最初の票が入ってから2日(48時間)以内に反対投票がない場合、当該の画像は評価に従い候補もしくは候補外となります。反対意見がある場合は状態を Discuss に変更すると、当該の画像は 同意審査 Consensual review 節へ移動されます。

結論の出し方

上記の猶予期間2日が過ぎると、QICbotは自動的に投票結果が出たものとして処理し、候補作に推薦された画像はCommons:Quality Images/Recently promotedにキャッシュされます。カテゴリ付与が済むと自動的に適切な良質な画像ページに追加されます。

もし皆さんが、秀逸な画像の地位に匹敵する特別な画像を発見したと思われた場合は、ぜひこの機会に当該画像をCommons:Featured picture candidatesに推薦してみてはいかがでしょうか。

手動処理の方法 (非常のときのみ開始してください)

候補作になると、

  1. 当該画像を適切な良質な画像の単一または複数のページに追加します。このとき、その画像は関連するサブページへも追加し、メインページに掲出するのは常に、最新の3–4点のみとします。
  2. 画像の説明ページを編集し、最下部に{{QualityImage}}テンプレートを追加します。
  3. 画像の推薦と評価を記した行をCommons:Quality images candidates/Archives 5月 2024に移動します。
  4. 利用者のトークページを編集し、{{File:imagename.jpg}}テンプレートを記入します。

候補から落選した場合、

  1. 画像の推薦と評価を記した文をCommons:Quality images candidates/Archives 5月 2024に移動します。
  • 審査を待機中の画像は枠線がブルーの枠線内に推薦文を表示
  • 審査者が当選と認めた画像は枠線が緑色
  • 審査者が落選と決めた画像は枠線が赤色

評価を受けなかった画像(青枠のまま)

推薦されこのページに掲出された画像は8日以内に、当落どちらの票も集まらなかった場合、あるいは合意に至らなかった(つまり同意審査で賛成票と反対票が同数だった)場合、当該の画像は推薦なしとしてCommons:Quality images candidates/Archives May 15 2024にアーカイブしてこのページからは削除し、画像の説明ページのカテゴリ欄にCategory:Unassessed QI candidatesを追加します。

同意審査のプロセス

同意審査とはよく目にする呼び方で、上記の手順で合意が得られず、他の意見を求める必要がある事例に使われます。

同意審査の申請をするには

手続きは状態を/Promotion, /Decline から /Discuss に変えるだけで、審査の直後にご自分のコメントを記入してください。ボットの自動処理により、当該画像は1日以内に同意審査節へ移動されます。

同意審査へ申し送りする対象は、すでに当選・落選の審査が済んだ画像のみとします。審査者として、もしもご自分で判断がつかない場合には当該画像をこのページに置いたまま、コメントを添えます。

同意審査のルール

Commons:良質な画像の候補#ルールをご参照ください

ページの再読み込み: 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]] 16:16, 15 5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).


May 15, 2024

May 14, 2024

May 13, 2024

May 12, 2024

May 11, 2024

May 10, 2024

May 9, 2024

May 8, 2024

May 7, 2024

May 6, 2024

May 5, 2024

May 4, 2024

May 3, 2024

May 2, 2024

May 1, 2024

April 30, 2024

April 29, 2024

April 28, 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:Cat_playing_guard.jpg

  • Nomination house cat --KaiBorgeest 21:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Acroterion 01:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. I love cats, but the photo shown here is not a quality image for me. The right side of the animal is too dark, out of focus, and the background is crooked. A pity. But perhaps it's debatable that I'm looking at it wrong. -- Spurzem 09:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I saw the composition and mood as compensation. --Acroterion 14:06, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. QIC is mostly about technical quality, so "mood" isn't something I'm emphasizing in this case.--Peulle 08:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed. Blurred by noise reduction combined with oversharpening. Or was it the built-in artificial intelligence that went wild and wrong when it tried to simulate a shallow depth of field in portrait mode? I don't think the exposure, lighting, composition and colors are bad at all. --Smial 10:45, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, great scene, looking really good in the preview, but technical quality is poor (probably due to a combination of low f-stop, high noise, high noise reduction and AI sharpening by the smartphone). --Plozessor 14:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Saint_Segolene_church_in_Soual_(12).jpg

  • Nomination Saint Segolene church in Soual (by Tournasol7) --Sebring12Hrs 15:40, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough. Why is this image presented for QI? -- Spurzem 19:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • It is absolutely very sharp. I don't understand your vote, is it a mistake ? --Sebring12Hrs 20:01, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Must be. To me this is very much sharp. --Nacaru 00:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I honestly don't understand why this picture is here.--GoldenArtists (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness is fine, the picture is good. --Syrio 15:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Probably a slow upload --Moroder 09:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 08:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Rippel_im_Sand_am_Strand_Norderneys_03.jpg

  • Nomination ripple marks at the beach of Norderney --Stephan Sprinz 19:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 20:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose oversharpened, sorry --Nikride 09:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 08:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I love the pattern. -- Marnanel 16:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Paysage_de_fin_de_journée_à_la_Galite.jpg

  • Nomination Paysage de fin de journée à la Galite.jpg --Atef Ouni 11:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Acroterion 01:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose noisy sky, sorry --Nikride 09:12, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I agree with Nikride. I'm sorry. --Nacaru 00:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Promising in the preview, technically disappointing in full resolution. --Milseburg (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Cáceres_-_Towers_of_San_Francisco_Javier.jpg

  • Nomination Cáceres (Extremadura, Spain) - Towers of St. Francis Xavier church, viewed from Plaza Santa Maria --Benjism89 11:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Velvet 06:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Colors look unnatural, can you correct it, Benjism89? --Nacaru 00:26, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
@Nacaru: Not sure which way you would like colors corrected, white balance seems OK to me. Do you feel it's oversaturated ? This picture was taken in the morning, maybe an hour after sunrise, hence the light. Benji 05:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The color looks good to me. --Syrio 15:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Colors are looking fine. Composition is probably unusual but I like it. --Plozessor 14:24, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 08:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Orchis_mâle,_montagne_de_la_Motte,_Champsaur,_France_03.jpg

  • Nomination Early Purple Orchid (Orchis mascula), Champsaur, France. --Yann 18:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support A bit noisy, otherwise good --MB-one 20:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for me. --C messier 20:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much noisy, please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 11:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per MB-one. Good enough for an A4-size print. --Smial 11:09, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 08:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Знаменка._Дворец._детали_02.jpg

  • Nomination Double-headed eagle of Russia on the top of Znamenka palace. Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 05:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Out of focus --Romainbehar 06:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. Sharp enough. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 14:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not very sharp, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 11:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Spurzem. Somewhat tight crop, and somewhat noisy, but good enough for an A4-size print. --Smial 11:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose noisy --Nikride 13:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support can't agree with opposers. Noise and unsharpness starts only if you zoom image so hard, so upper crown would fill all the screen. That's borderline but ok for me. Красный 22:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Some noise and processing artifacts at full resolution, but that is high and it looks perfectly fine at lower, still adequate, resolution. --Plozessor 04:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality - "sharpness" is relative to magnification and unless this building detail is blown out of proportion it appears to meet acceptable standards for QI. --Scotch Mist 06:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looking at the eagle heads, this photo looks overprocessed to me.--Peulle 10:41, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Знаменка._Дворец._детали_03.jpg

  • Nomination Exterior detail of Palace of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich. Znamenka estate, Peterhof, Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 05:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Out of focus --Romainbehar 06:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. Sharp enough. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 14:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not very sharp, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 11:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Spurzem. Somewhat tight crop, and somewhat noisy, but good enough for an A4-size print. --Smial 11:32, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Spurzem. Красный 21:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality - "sharpness" is relative to magnification and unless this building detail is blown out of proportion it appears to meet acceptable standards for QI. --Scotch Mist 06:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low detail level and sharpness.--Peulle 08:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Знаменка._Дворец._детали_04.jpg

  • Nomination Window pediment of Palace of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich. Znamenka estate, Peterhof, Saint Petersburg, Russia --Екатерина Борисова 05:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Out of focus --Romainbehar 06:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. Sharp enough. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 14:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Spurzem. Somewhat tight crop, and somewhat noisy, but good enough for an A4-size print. --Smial 10:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not very sharp, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 11:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Either some colleagues have problems with connection, so image is uploading badly or are being too strict. This photo is enough sharp to illustrate articles even in larger sizes. Красный 18:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough, given the high resolution. --Plozessor 04:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think the detail level is high enough. Possibly explained by the fact that this is a small compact camera.--Peulle 08:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Salzburg_2014_01.jpg

  • Nomination Salzburg Hauptbahnhof --Perituss 18:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Would be good if not for the bicycles down right. Sorry --MB-one 20:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --C messier 20:25, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Technically the photo is sufficient for QI, and maybe someone is looking for a photo with the bicycles in front of the station? --Smial 11:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Smial -- Екатерина Борисова 21:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO the bicycles are not disturbing. --Plozessor 04:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Langfenn,_chiesa_di_San_Giacomo_08.jpg

  • Nomination Saint James church in Mölten, Italy --Syrio 09:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Please check the verticals. --Ermell 19:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
    Uhm they look good to me; could you explain? --Syrio 10:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
    The church is leaning out when you look at the left side of the tower and the right side of the house. --Ermell 14:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
    Uuuhm yeah but that's how it looks from this point of view? I'd have to warp the photo to make those lines vertical, the perspective would look wrong and I'm not really willing to do that :| --Syrio 15:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
     Support Looks good to me. Verticals seem in accordance with the perspective of the image. --Lrkrol 14:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Lrkrol. At least it's better than too strong a correction. --Smial 11:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Grande_aigrette.jpg

  • Nomination Great egret in Djerba. By User:Skander zarrad --TOUMOU 17:36, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Lrkrol 18:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Lighting too harsh, insufficient contrast between subject and background. Sensor spot top-left (fixable). --Tagooty 04:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Per Tagooty --Nikride 09:17, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Tagooty. Красный 21:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Photographers_in_Rabat.jpg

  • Nomination Photographers at Mausoleum Mohammed V, Rabat --PetarM 13:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Romainbehar 19:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. The photographers are quite good but the post on the right adds nothing to the image (move to the left a little). Also, the three people in the background are too distracting, particularly the man in the middle doing something with his nose. --GRDN711 17:17, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I opposed at FP but think this is perfectly fine for QI. BigDom 00:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --AuHaidhausen 20:33, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --BigDom 00:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Chapelle_Saint-Grégoire_(Marckolsheim).jpg

  • Nomination Saint-Grégoire Chapel in Marckolsheim (Bas-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 19:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:44, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree, too dark and tilted --Jacek Halicki 21:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Way underexposed. --Kallerna 15:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Better ? Gzen92 20:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now, the white is bright as it should be but there is still detail there. BigDom 00:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per BigDom. --Smial 11:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good --Plozessor 04:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Badajoz_-_Puerta_de_Palmas_-_01.jpg

  • Nomination Badajoz (Extremadura, Spain) - Puerta de Palmas‎ --Benjism89 14:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Mike Peel 18:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It needs a perspective correction, top crop too tight --Poco a poco 20:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose PC is needed. --Sebring12Hrs 07:26, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Poco a poco および Sebring12Hrs: Although I don't really agree with the demands for perspective correction (in my opinion, perspective correction should only be used when your subject is two-dimensional and you're not interested about everything around, which is not the case here), I did correct perspective and uncrop the top of it. Benjism89 11:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks better now to my eye. BigDom 03:42, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Nacaru 09:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, and possibly a slight cushion distortion. Foreground somewhat dark, but still acceptable. Irrespective of the fact that the image sharpness is definitely sufficient considering the image resolution: Is f/14 the "sweet spot" with the lens used or are we already seeing the first effects of diffraction blurring here? I would probably have used f/5.6 or f/8 with my cheap Tamron zoom (it's very soft at open aperture...), because from f/16 it gets visibly worse again. --Smial 23:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Smial, sorry but the perspective correction is to strong. --Sebring12Hrs 11:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Οικία_των_ψηφιδωτών,_Ερέτρια_1584.jpg

  • Nomination House of the Mosaics, Ancient Eretria. --C messier 22:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 06:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I disagree. Don't really understand the composition here. White wall at the back is showing on the right side, none of the bottom elements align. --Nacaru 08:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Composition/Perspective per Nacaru --Plozessor 04:28, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline? Nacaru 23:10, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Schleswig-Holstein,_Todenbüttel,_Friedhof_NIK_0569.jpg

  • Nomination Grab auf dem Friedhof von Todenbüttel --Nightflyer 11:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Tight crop. --SHB2000 23:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
     Support Tight crop, seriously ? --Sebring12Hrs 22:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
     Support The crop's fine to me. --ReneeWrites 16:02, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 Support Looks OK to me. Nacaru 23:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
 Support--ArildV 07:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral To be honest, I'm not entirely happy with the photo. On the one hand, the lighting is very harsh, resulting in very hard shadows. Ok, many people think that's great because it suggests high image sharpness. On the other hand, the photo looks crooked. I would probably have oriented the camera towards the background. Yes, then the grave cross is most likely crooked, but that is very often the case with these grave fields around old churches and would be a more realistic representation in my opinion. --Smial 12:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --BigDom 08:48, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Malbork_Castle_2023_072.jpg

  • Nomination Tympanum at the Castle of the Teutonic Order in Malbork --Scotch Mist 06:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Bad crops and not very sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 11:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Another perspective? --Scotch Mist 13:54, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. And noise. And a strange perspective. Was there no better position for the camera to photograph the object so that it doesn't look so crooked? --Smial 00:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom 00:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Malbork_Castle_2023_071.jpg

  • Nomination Tympanum at the Castle of the Teutonic Order in Malbork --Scotch Mist 05:37, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not very sharp and noisy. --Sebring12Hrs 00:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
    This type of stone sculpture does not have the inherent sharpness of a precise marble sculpture and also given the aged colouring perhaps appears overly noisey but IMHO the image is still worthy of consideration for QI! --Scotch Mist 08:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs. Also unfortunate lighting. --Smial 00:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom 00:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Malbork_Castle_2023_061.jpg

  • Nomination Relief of Madonna & The Magi at the Castle of the Teutonic Order in Malbork --Scotch Mist 13:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Comment I don't think it's sharp enough. --Sebring12Hrs 15:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
    Another perspective? --Scotch Mist 22:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Sharpness seems acceptable but perspective is not ideal. --Plozessor 04:24, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment @Plozessor: Thanks for your view - what appears to be a 'non-ideal perspective' is due to an actual mis-alignment (non-parallel) edges at the bottom of the image, as is evidenced from the photos taken by others of this relief. --Scotch Mist 09:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I can't imagine it can be promote... --Sebring12Hrs 16:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment @Sebring12Hrs: Perhaps viewing photos taken by others (eg File:Malbork_zamek_38.jpg) in Category:St. Anne's Chapel (Malbork Castle) may be helpful. --Scotch Mist 06:38, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Malbork_Castle_2023_112.jpg

  • Nomination River View of St Mary's Church, High Castle of the Teutonic Order in Malbork (Lightened Shadows!) --Scotch Mist 06:34, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • IMHO, it is better with the darker shadows. --C messier 16:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Another perspective? --Scotch Mist 13:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment: I agree with C messier, it kinda makes it look processed with the current shadows. Nacaru 01:21, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

✓ Done OK, thank you both for your comments - have reverted to previous version!--Scotch Mist 06:39, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

  •  Support. Nacaru 00:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Current version seems ok. --Plozessor 04:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

日程表(推薦から8日目)

  • 火 07 5月 → 水 15 5月
  • 水 08 5月 → 木 16 5月
  • 木 09 5月 → 金 17 5月
  • 金 10 5月 → 土 18 5月
  • 土 11 5月 → 日 19 5月
  • 日 12 5月 → 月 20 5月
  • 月 13 5月 → 火 21 5月
  • 火 14 5月 → 水 22 5月
  • 水 15 5月 → 木 23 5月