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Outdated translations are marked like this.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 5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 5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 May 01 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]] 06:35, 1 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 how you are doing).


May 1, 2024

April 30, 2024

April 29, 2024

April 28, 2024

April 27, 2024

April 26, 2024

April 25, 2024

April 24, 2024

April 23, 2024

April 22, 2024

April 21, 2024

April 20, 2024

April 18, 2024

April 17, 2024

April 16, 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:Lille_bd_pierre_de_coubertin.jpg

  • Nomination View of Boulevard Pierre de Coubertin (M651), in Lille, France --Velvet 07:07, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --PaestumPaestum 07:39, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Man's head spoils the image IMHO --Екатерина Борисова 08:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Yes, the man's head is disturbing --Jakubhal 05:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The head is a no go for QI. This crop would work though. --MB-one 10:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per MB-One. --Plozessor 03:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 06:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Bloemencorso_Zundert_2023_-_Afwas_1.png

  • Nomination Float of the 2023 flower parade of Zundert, titled "The dishes" --ReneeWrites 06:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Nice composition, but unfortunately lack of detail. --Alexander-93 07:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
    Disagree - appears sufficient detail given the subject photographed!
     Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 09:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Alexander --Jakubhal 12:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:29, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Anthocharis_cardamines_male_01.jpg

  • Nomination Anthocharis cardamines, male, Italy --Syrio 18:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good. --Thi 19:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but I disagree. This one is just too noisy, hardly anything really in focus and low detail. The level of noise is quite astonishing for ISO 200. I wonder whether this could be upscaled or overprocessed? --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  • @Robert Flogaus-Faust:​ it's been a while since I took this; I may have used the digital zoom, could it be that? --Syrio 12:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Robert, it's either digitally upscaled or it had massive NR applied. --Plozessor 04:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 07:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Plaza_de_Saint-Michel,_París,_Francia,_2022-10-29,_DD_140.jpg

  • Nomination Plaza de Saint-Michel, París, Francia, 2022-10-29 (by Poco a poco) --Sebring12Hrs 15:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Blown sky, rest looks noisy, not sure this is recoverable, sorry --Mike Peel 21:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • May I ask for a new assessment? --Poco a poco 12:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Of course, but then this should go to CR instead of being reset to "/Nomination". I set it to "/Discuss". --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Not sure this needed to end up at CR, sorry I didn't manage to respond sooner. It looks good to me now, thanks for reworking it, I was clearly wrong about it not being recoverable. Thanks. Mike Peel 18:34, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 Support Good quality. ReneeWrites 18:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose Pretty low resolution, considering the camera used, and still only mediocre sharpness. If it's a cropped image, then the photographer was too far away from the subject. If it has been reduced in size, then I'd rather not know how blurred the original is. Unfortunately, the sky doesn't look much better after the reworking than before, just somehow more artificial, sorry. --Smial 16:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 Comment I uploaded a further version with improvements in terms of sharpness. Yes, I had to crop it because I had my wide angle and couldn't stand too close to the building as it was a wide road. Poco a poco 21:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 Support I think the problems have been solved. The sky looks sliiiiiiightly overexposed but still looks realistic. Nacaru 08:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Nacaru 09:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Red_Clay,_Jana_(P1100314).jpg

  • Nomination Cessna 414 on display at Red Clay Studio near Tamale, Ghana --MB-one 09:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Yes. --PetarM 19:42, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. Wing is clipped in this image and there is lots of room to move around to include all of the plane. You have another image of this plane (already QI) that shows all of the plane. --GRDN711 19:45, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @GRDN711:​ Although there is another image of the same aircraft already promoted to QI, this one is showing a different angle. I also don't see which part of the wing is clipped. Could you be more specific about this please? --MB-one 19:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment My apologies, MB-one. The plane is not clipped. However, per Plozessor but taking the opposite tack on this, I continue to weakly oppose this nomination due to the cluttered background of this image. I just don't think it is QI. Would support your other image --GRDN711 00:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support What appears to be a clipped wing is actually the wing of the other aircraft on the left. The subject aircraft is completely in the picture. The composition is not ideal because of these other planes around, but there was probably no other possibility to show this side of the Cessna. --Plozessor 03:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Pic if perfect African (colors, tone). Its not FP, but for sure QI. --PetarM 18:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 09:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

File:St_Martin_church_in_Limayrac_(3).jpg

  • Nomination Saint Martin church in Limayrac, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 04:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality --Llez 05:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. It looks like the church is tipping backwards. In addition, the lighting is very unfavorable. Please discuss whether the photo is a quality image or whether a better shot could be imagined. -- Spurzem 09:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem -- Екатерина Борисова 07:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Verticals are fine. Exposure is good enough IMO. --MB-one 10:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per MB-one. --Sebring12Hrs 11:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 Comment. It's amazing: If the verticals are right, a picture is good. Everything else doesn't matter. Every day I understand more and more why I no longer present photos here. -- Spurzem 13:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 Comment I don't like your attitude with me. Repect my vote please. I understand your opinion about the perspective, but I think it's acceptable here. --Sebring12Hrs 12:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unnatural distortion due to over-corrected perspective from a close angle, sorry. Mike Peel 07:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  • From a purely technical point of view, the perspective correction has actually been done very well, in particular the image sharpness is significantly better than in some other photos with corresponding editing. Colors, contrasts and exposure are also very well done, and the anonymized license plates are hardly noticeable. On the one hand, I don't like such extreme wide-angle perspectives, but on the other hand, technically worse pictures with similar perspectives have won awards in the past. Because of the danger of double standards, therefore, a somewhat inconsistent weak  Support from me. --Smial 15:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

File:St_Christopher_church_in_Ampiac_(5).jpg

  • Nomination Portal of the Saint Christopher church in Ampiac, commune of Druelle Balsac, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 05:53, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support A bit dark overall but ok --Poco a poco 06:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. The "restless" shadows bother me a lot. Please discuss whether the photo is still a quality image. -- Spurzem 17:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't have a problem with those shadows. --Sebring12Hrs 09:54, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Shadows are distracting. --Tagooty 02:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The shadows are there in reality due to the tree in front of the church, and the picture shows the door as a visitor would see it on a sunny day. IMO it's even capturing that atmosphere. --Plozessor 04:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello Plozessor, Your explanation reminds me of the photo I've often mentioned of the black cat in the dark basement with no light. Best regards -- Spurzem 11:31, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Plozessor --Jakubhal 15:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Opposes per Tagooty. --GRDN711 20:16, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 09:37, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Argenberg 12:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Absolutely poetic,good quality --GoldenArtists 13:53, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 06:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

时间表(提名后8天)

  • 二 23 4月 → 三 01 5月
  • 三 24 4月 → 四 02 5月
  • 四 25 4月 → 五 03 5月
  • 五 26 4月 → 六 04 5月
  • 六 27 4月 → 日 05 5月
  • 日 28 4月 → 一 06 5月
  • 一 29 4月 → 二 07 5月
  • 二 30 4月 → 三 08 5月
  • 三 01 5月 → 四 09 5月