Commons:Kandidat për imazh cilësor

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 13% 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.
Shortcut
↓ Kalo tek kandidimi ↓
Other languages:

Këto janë kandidatë për t'u bërë fotografi cilësore. Ju lutem vini re se kjo nuk është e njëjta gjë si fotografi e përkryer. Përveç kësaj, në qoftë se ju vetëm dëshironi disa komente në fotot tuaja ju mund të merrni atë në Commons:Photography critiques.

Qëllimi

Qëllimi i imazhe me cilësi është për të inkurajuar njerëzit që janë themeli i Commons, përdoruesit individual që ofrojnë pamjet unike që të zgjeruar këtë koleksion. While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users’ efforts in providing quality images to Commons. Additionally, quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image.


Udhëzimet

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

Për nominuesit

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images; more detailed criteria are available at Image guidelines.

Image page requirements
  1. Copyright status. Quality image candidates have to be uploaded to Commons under a suitable license. The full license requirements are at Commons:Copyright tags.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.

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

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible unless the photographer is a Commons user. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) Photographical reproductions of two-dimensional works of art, made by Wikimedians, are eligible (and should be licensed PD-old according to the Commons guidelines). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.


Technical requirements

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Resolution

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media. This rule excludes vector graphics (SVG) or computer-generated images that have been constructed with freely-licensed or open software programs as noted in the image's description.

Cilësia e imazhit

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.

Composition and lighting

The arrangement of the subject within the image should contribute to the image. Foreground and background objects should not be distracting. Lighting and focus also contribute to the overall result; the subject should be sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed.

Vlera

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.

How to nominate

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section: 

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below: 

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.

Number of nominations

No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

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

Evaluating images

Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination. For an easier evaluation you can activate the gadget QICvote

When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

How to review

How to update the status

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }} to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you liked it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }} to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator’s talk page – as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Grace period and promotion

If there are no objections within a period of 2 days (exactly 48 hours) from the first review, the image becomes promoted or fails according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.

How to execute decision

QICbot automatically handles this 2 days after a decision has been made, and promoted images are cached in Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted awaiting categorization before their automatic insertion in to appropriate Quality images pages.

If you believe that you have identified an exceptional image that is worthy of Featured picture status then consider also nominating the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives dhjetor 2024.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

If declined,

  1. move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives dhjetor 2024.
  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red

Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives December 22 2024 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.

Consensual review process

Consensual review is a catch all place used in the case the procedure described above is insufficient and needs discussion for more opinions to emerge.

How to ask for consensual review

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.

Please only send things to consensual review that have been reviewed as promoted/declined. If, as a reviewer, you cannot make a decision, add your comments but leave the candidate on this page.

Consensual review rules

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: 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]] 02:32, 22 dhjetor 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).


December 22 2024

December 21 2024

December 20 2024

December 19 2024

December 18 2024

December 17 2024

December 16, 2024

December 15, 2024

December 14, 2024

December 13, 2024

December 12, 2024

December 11, 2024

December 10, 2024

December 9, 2024

December 7, 2024

December 6, 2024

December 3, 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:Oberwesel_im_Novembernebel.jpg

  •  Comment I am going to remain neutral but this image is worthy for discussion. (The original image was good but the fog creates a complicated atmosphere for critique due to the rarity of such an image. The haze to our right could be fog or grainy noise which is the deception of the image. It is a very difficult image to critique.)--Tzim78 20:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Original version was good. New version is tilted and overcontrasted and has less detail. Also the resolution doesn't match any of the camera's native ones, would be interesting (and probably should be in the description) whether this is a panorama or it was cropped or it was widened to optimize the aspect ratio. --Plozessor 07:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The first version wasn’t good either. It had something resembling an AI-generated lower right corner—the top part of the bush was sharp, while the lower part was not, with a clear boundary between these zones. Additionally, the stakes visible in the second version were missing in the first one, which leads me to think they were “fixed” by some AI processing. While the second version avoids this specific issue, it unfortunately suffers from all the other problems mentioned by Milseburg and Plozessor. Jakubhal 13:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 10:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sonnenuntergang-Las-Vistas-Tenerife-2024.jpg

 Comment added implicit oppose --Plozessor 07:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brightening the foreground would fix it for me, the beach is currently way too dark. Thanks. Mike Peel 08:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Looks authentic to me. Good sharpness. I've never been there. I know from other places that evening light doesn't always look the same all days. Perhaps it should be sent into CR. --Milseburg 15:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Mike Peel (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:St_Maurice_church_in_Langenenslingen_(10).jpg

  •  Comment @Spurzem dhe Jakubhal: I like branches "on the side of the picture" but this one is obscuring the view of the spire. Would have been easy to go a few steps to the side or holding the camera a bit lower to have the branch next to, not in front of, the subject. --Plozessor 07:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   ---- Jakubhal 05:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Neuruppin_Tempelgarten_asv2024-04_img7.jpg

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 10:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hvítserkur_Sea_Stack,_Northwestern_Region,_Iceland,_20240715_1138_0855.jpg

  • @Jakubhal: I like your brightened version - definitely an improvement over the orginal. Now we come to the Tourist. Sometimes you throw in a Tourist to provide a sense of scale. Was Tourist a planned part of your making of this image, or did they happen by accident? Would your image be better if Tourist disappeared by digital magic. Your thoughts? --GRDN711 01:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don’t mind tourists in photos - they often provide a sense of scale. In this case, the tourist is barely noticeable unless you actively look for him. I feel you're applying FPC-level standards to a QIC submission, which doesn’t need to be perfect in every detail. Jakubhal 05:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jakubhal: You are nominating an image for QI intended for promotional use in Wikipedia and similar. It is not a forum for casual snap shots. If Tourists are in an image, it should be by design of the photographer, not by accident. I supported your other three images of this sea stack rock. While you have improved the 4th, accidental Tourist remains an issue for me (I feel the same way when I see tree branches coming out of people's heads :( ), and I remain opposed. --GRDN711 20:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Plozessor: Please hold up on the final count a little so that we can finish our discussion on this image. --GRDN711 01:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Plozessor: All done, Thank you. --GRDN711 20:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cisterna_Basílica,_Estambul,_Turquía,_2024-09-28,_DD_01-03_HDR.jpg

  •  Support Noise/sharpness acceptable for the situation (now). Personally I'd prefer a less verticalized, more naturally looking version, but I guess we have to compromise with the verticalization fanatics. --Plozessor 17:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 17:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Croatia_Šibenik_BW_2024-09-30_11-17-48.jpg

Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Vsatinet 19:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Island,_Hong_Kong_(20130807-DSC04174).jpg

✓ Done fixed WB and sharpened a bit --MB-one 20:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Still not OK IMO, and I'm afraid the WB has gone worse (now it's very yellow) --Benjism89 08:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose WB is better now, but overall too soft and not sharp enough. --Milseburg 14:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support IMO it is sharp and detailed enough in its native resolution (which is the camera's full resolution). However, @MB-one description seems wrong - per EXIF it's from 2013 but the description says 2020. --Plozessor 17:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Weak oppose Sorry, but WB correcting of original image was too strong and the picture now is too yellow (it's depence also of monitor settings, but in any case too yellow). If the color balance will slightly shifted towards blue, it would be much better. Also, maybe buildings seem low contrast (as if overexposed) now, but that's IMHO. As for sharpness and detail - I think everything is ok. Vsatinet 18:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ponte_di_Rialto_Venice_2.jpg

Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 22:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Swineherd_statue_in_Riedlingen_(2).jpg

  •  Oppose Since there are distractions in the background (red) in my opinion in this case it is important to enhance and illuminate the subject to give it prominence. It's not an obligation, it's just advice from my point of view. --Terragio67 18:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tournasol7, If you use Lightroom on the RAW file, it will be a quick and easy job to remove CAs . Then, It could be a good thing to perform a partial correction applying the automatic (A) option on Geometry (see the CW sloped building on the right). To conclude, IMO, the main subject lacks of continuity because it is too dark in the central part. The modification on the image subject that I proposed for download is deliberately overdone about the changes I made. This attempt was only to give you a clue on how the changes could be done, because the image is really nice. --Terragio67 06:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 13:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Palacio_de_Topkapı,_Estambul,_Turquía,_2024-09-30,_DD_59.jpg

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Vsatinet 12:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC) [reply]

File:Naso_unicornis_A74259020241123.jpg

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:At Frankfurt am Main 2024 019 - Große Liegende.jpg

  • Imo the background still has to be more straight, but I also realize the main object is very close to the camera position. I would like to hear other opinions about this perspective issue --Michielverbeek 08:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zadar_(HR),_Meerenge_von_Maslenica_--_2022_--_0024.jpg

 Comment Very good compo, but not very sharp indeed at full size on a computer. --Sebring12Hrs 00:51, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promoted   --Milseburg 12:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wildpark_Schloss_Tambach_Sakerfalke-20240908-RM-111006-6.jpg

Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

  • Sht 14 dhj → Die 22 dhj
  • Die 15 dhj → Hën 23 dhj
  • Hën 16 dhj → Mar 24 dhj
  • Mar 17 dhj → Mër 25 dhj
  • Mër 18 dhj → Enj 26 dhj
  • Enj 19 dhj → Pre 27 dhj
  • Pre 20 dhj → Sht 28 dhj
  • Sht 21 dhj → Die 29 dhj
  • Die 22 dhj → Hën 30 dhj
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Quality_images_candidates/sq&oldid=908384841"