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Outdated translations are marked like this.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 6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 6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 June 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]] 07:38, 1 6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).


June 1, 2024

May 31, 2024

May 30, 2024

May 29, 2024

May 28, 2024

May 27, 2024

May 26, 2024

May 25, 2024

May 24, 2024

May 23, 2024

May 22, 2024

May 21, 2024

May 20, 2024

May 19, 2024

May 18, 2024

May 17, 2024

May 16, 2024

May 15, 2024

May 13, 2024

May 12, 2024

May 8, 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:Railway_Museum,_Almaty_(P1180238).jpg

  • Nomination Cutaway of a railway buffer in the Kazakh National Railway Museum in Almaty --MB-one 09:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion Insufficient quality. Lots of noise. --Smial 11:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
    ✓ Done Denoised. Thanks for the review --MB-one 22:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

File:African_wolf_(Canis_lupaster)_in_Bouhedma_National_Park.jpg

  • Nomination African wolf (Canis lupaster) in Bouhedma national park. By User:Faouz Kilani --TOUMOU 21:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Chroma noise, lacking sharpness, lacking categorization --Plozessor 04:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It is an interesting place, but it does not have the necessary quality --Parsa 2au 08:51, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

 Oppose Not sharp al all --Екатерина Борисова 02:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose Beautiful landscape, but unfortunately noisy and blurry picture. Not QI, sorry --Екатерина Борисова 00:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose Beautiful landscape, but unfortunately noisy and blurry picture. Not QI, sorry --Екатерина Борисова 06:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose Something went wrong with voting and all my comments migrated from here to the next picture. I tried to say that this one is unfortunately noisy and blurry. Not QI, sorry --Екатерина Борисова 07:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Rather blurry, not QI, IMHO --Екатерина Борисова 02:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose

  • Something went really wrong with comments to this and next image. I deeply sorry for so many words here, i didn't want to do it --Екатерина Борисова 03:08, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Stemma_del_Cardinale_Scipione_Rebiba.svg

  • Nomination Arms of Scipione Rebiba --ZuppaDiCarlo 13:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose These can not be created by the user, they can only be faithful reproductions by the user. This also applies to other Coats of arms that have be [reviously asses as QI Gnangarra 13:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree Gnangarra. Coat of arms are different. Its not a reproduction imo. It is created from a Blazon. In heraldry and heraldic vexillology, a blazon is a formal description of a coat of arms, flag or similar emblem, from which the reader can reconstruct the appropriate image. Every version (interpretation) is unique, and based on the blazon and not a reproduction of any other interpretation. --ArildV 19:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
    •  Comment they are based on a registered design for them to be recognised as belonging to the specific person, part of QI is reliable/verifiable identification. Gnangarra 07:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I also disagree with Gnangarra. Coat of Arms designed on Commons are based on a blazon, which is a precisely accurate description of the Coat of Arms. It is not a reproduction, since the design is unique to that blazon. It is in the same style (color palette, philosophy of design, et cetera) as other commons coat of arms, and that is called the Sodacan style, but still the image is created by the user.
  •  Question Is this representation correct? See source here.--Peulle 09:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 09:14, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Stemma_della_Contea_di_Tripoli.svg

  • Nomination Arms of the County of Tripoli --ZuppaDiCarlo 13:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose These can not be created by the user, they can only be faithful reproductions by the user. This also applies to other Coats of arms that have be [reviously asses as QI Gnangarra 13:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Origin aside, I think this image is too simple to be considered a QI.--Peulle 09:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your review. --ZuppaDiCarlo 21:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 09:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stemma_della_famiglia_Porcia.svg

  • Nomination Arms of the House of Porcia --ZuppaDiCarlo 13:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose These can not be created by the user, they can only be faithful reproductions by the user. This also applies to other Coats of arms that have be [reviously asses as QI Gnangarra 13:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree again with Gnangarra for the same reason as earlier. Ashoppio 13:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 09:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:BYD_Dolphin_(Global_version)_IMG_9517.jpg

  • Nomination BYD Dolphin (Global version) in Ulm --Alexander-93 10:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose  Neutral I don't understand why nearly all your images are cropped so elongated and flat. Is this supposed to be a trademark? -- Spurzem 11:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The main object in this image is the vehicle being charged. The BYD and the charging station have IMHO enough space to the boundaries of the image. More space at the bottom/top would distract the viewer from the main objects. Please discuss.--Alexander-93 19:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
If I remember correctly, I didn't vote against, but suggested that the photos advertised as QI should not be squeezed together again and again. If there is enough space above and below the main subject, no one will be distracted. -- Spurzem 13:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see a problem with the image. Cropping is OK as long as we're not talking about downsizing and it serves to improve the image on display.--Peulle 09:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support No problem with the aspect ratio. --Milseburg 11:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The subject is the car, IMO the crop is quite perfect here. Picture is also good otherwise. --Plozessor 15:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   -Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Long_Island_2023_027.jpg

  • Nomination St. Andrew's Episcopal Church, Yaphank, New York --Mike Peel 09:26, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Alexander-93 10:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. The buildings are too distorted and the front could be a bit brighter. Please compare the edited version and discuss whether the original photo is a QI. -- Spurzem 11:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I'd prefer the original version of Spurzem's (which is less distorted but tilted). Something in-between would be optimal I guess. --Plozessor 16:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The original one is leaning. --Sebring12Hrs 08:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 09:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Степная_ящерица.jpg

  • Nomination Steppe Agama in Karakiya-karakol sanctuary. Karakiya District, Mangystau Region, Kazakhstan. By User:Ezra Sheyner --Красный 05:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose noise , the focus only on the head --TOUMOU 06:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. Somewhat low DOF, but focus is ok, and the noise level is acceptable. --Smial 11:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment It looks more like a portrait than a nature photography. I can't decide whether it's good or bad. -- Екатерина Борисова 07:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Understandable that not the whole animal can be sharp, but the sharp area is too small for my taste. --Plozessor 16:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, but I feel the body should not be that out of focus, it makes it look as if its head had been attached from a different photo. Nacaru 23:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Nacaru 23:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Arriach_Pfarrkirche_hll._Philipp_und_Jakob_mit_Friedhof_SO-Ansicht_29042024_4972.jpg

  • Nomination Parish church Saints Philip and James, Arriach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --IM3847 01:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. I'm not convinced of a good quality. The image is cropped too close at the bottom and the tower is badly distorted. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 09:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem -- Екатерина Борисова 07:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 09:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Frontenac_County_Courthouse_2021-06-23.jpg

  • Nomination Frontenac County Courthouse, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. --The Cosmonaut 00:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Nice composition, but not lucky with lighting --IM3847 01:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Sunny weather is not a requirement, so I ask for another opinion --The Cosmonaut 21:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral. Even if it is not an explicit requirement, photos of landscapes and buildings promoted as QI should be appealing. Unfortunately, your dark picture of the beautiful building does not appeal to me either. -- Spurzem 13:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support An overcast sky without direct sunlight is quite normal and no decline rason. It's a matter of opinion wether it's appealing or not. I think it's more demanding then on sunny days and was handled here good enough for QI. --Milseburg 20:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 20:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Stemma_reale_di_Giano_di_Cipro.svg

  • Nomination Arms of the Kingdom of Cyprus--ZuppaDiCarlo 22:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose These can not be created by the user, they can only be faithful reproductions by the user. This also applies to other Coats of arms that have be previously assesed as QI Gnangarra 13:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question I'm not sure I understand. If a user makes an image of a country's flag or an organization's logo, why should that not be eligible for QI?--Peulle 09:08, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Qi requires all elements including the source of the image, this not something made up by the artist, like distribution map it requires a source or multiple sources for to be identifed as being a true representation. Gnangarra 07:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The font is from a portugese Armorial produced in 1416. This was made by a Portuguese herald, who attended the Council of Constance. Now it is located in the John Rylands Library. The URL is in the Source section in the file page. --ZuppaDiCarlo 21:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Same reason as the earlier replies by me. The coat of arms here represented is a reproduction of a blazon, which is a description. It is not based on another person design. In my opinion, this work is really well done both heraldically (except for the Jerusalem Cross on Argent, which is a rather "illegal" thing to do in modern heraldry, but that just history, or arms of inquiry.) and design-wise. Ashoppio 13:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Zuccarello-Stemma.svg

  • Nomination Vector CoA of Zuccarello --Ashoppio 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ZuppaDiCarlo 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose faithful reproduction, other peoples work, not eligable for QI also requires the original source of the of the work. Gnangarra 13:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 09:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Vado_Ligure-Stemma.svg

  • Nomination Vector CoA of Vado Ligure --Ashoppio 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ZuppaDiCarlo 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Opposefaithful reproduction, other peoples work, not eligable for QI also requires the original source of the of the work. Gnangarra 13:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 09:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Garlenda-Stemma.svg

  • Nomination Vector CoA of Garlenda --Ashoppio 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ZuppaDiCarlo 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose faithful reproduction, other peoples work, not eligable for QI also requires the original source of the of the work. Gnangarra 13:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 09:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Laigueglia-Stemma.svg

  • Nomination Vector CoA of Laigueglia --Ashoppio 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ZuppaDiCarlo 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose faithful reproduction, other peoples work, not eligable for QI also requires the original source of the of the work. Gnangarra 13:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 09:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Andora-Stemma.svg

  • Nomination Vector CoA of Andora --Ashoppio 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --ZuppaDiCarlo 18:40, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose faithful reproduction, other peoples work, not eligable for QI also requires the original source of the of the work. Gnangarra 13:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question @Gnangarra:​ isn't there the reference in the image description? It is a faithful reproduction of a blazonry. Not another photograph. The shield is made by me.
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 09:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Antïlope_acuático_(Kobus_ellipsiprymnus),_parque_nacional_del_Lago_Mburo,_Uganda,_2024-02-01,_DD_40.jpg

  • Nomination Waterbucks (Kobus ellipsiprymnus), Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda --Poco a poco 16:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The author is not a Wikipedia member. --Remontees 23:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • This series of comments looks like vandalism. Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 02:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Екатерина. Robert Flogaus-Faust FYI. --Plozessor 09:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Question What about me? The comment by User:Remontees is not understandable. Wikipedia membership is not required here. User:Poco a poco is an administrator on Commons who contributed lots of great images, so he is certainly a commoner. I don't know whether this vote is the result of a software bug, or whether it was accidentally misplaced or even intentional vandalism and I won't speculate about this. However, I am not entirely sure about this image because a large part of the animal looks rather blurry (on the left side), even though its head looks good. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Again somebody who is assessing without being in the condition to do so? I'm a Commoner for over 15 years, uploaded about 30,000 images to the project, 1,000 of them featured, admin,... speechless Poco a poco 13:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Quality Image! --Scotch Mist 14:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The objection seems groundless.--Peulle 09:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks very much like a QI to me. Nacaru 23:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality (for sure!!) and sorry for my misjudgement, I didn't know that it was the same person (not obvious btw, thanks for the one who opened a discussion on my personal discussion page). --Remontees 22:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Remontees 22:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Antïlopes_acuáticos_(Kobus_ellipsiprymnus),_parque_nacional_del_Lago_Mburo,_Uganda,_2024-02-01,_DD_41.jpg

  • Nomination Waterbucks (Kobus ellipsiprymnus), Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda --Poco a poco 16:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The author is not a Wikipedia member. --Remontees 23:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
    Author is the long-time Wiki member and it's quite easy to verify this fact. Your objection looks very strange. --Екатерина Борисова 02:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Екатерина. --Plozessor 09:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO this image is good for QI. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support--Peulle 09:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality (for sure!!) and sorry for my misjudgement, I didn't know that it was the same person (not obvious btw, thanks for the one who opened a discussion on my personal discussion page). --Remontees 22:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Remontees 22:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Antílope_acuático_(Kobus_ellipsiprymnus_defassa),_parque_nacional_del_Lago_Mburo,_Uganda,_2024-02-01,_DD_25.jpg

  • Nomination Waterbucks (Kobus ellipsiprymnus), Lake Mburo National Park, Uganda --Poco a poco 16:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Remontees 23:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The author is not a Wikipedia member. --Remontees 23:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Please explain! Poco a poco has been a Wikimedia user since 2008.--ArildV 08:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Something off here, both the supporting and the opposing vote have the same timestamp from Remontees. --Plozessor 09:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hopefully it is just some copy-paste error and and not bad faith. --ArildV 18:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality (for sure!!) and sorry for my misjudgement, I didn't know that it was the same person (not obvious btw, thanks for the one who opened a discussion on my personal discussion page). So calm down, I'm not ill-willed as you can see you can have a discussion on my personal discussion page. No problem. :) --Remontees 22:43, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The author is a Wikimedia user and the picture is excellent. --Plozessor 09:12, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 12:11, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support High Quality Image! --Scotch Mist 15:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --ArildV 18:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I don't see a problem here. I annulled the intital pro vote as a user can only vote once for each image.--Peulle 09:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good quality --Jakubhal 11:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 7 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Remontees 22:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Iberostar,_Barcelona_(P1170607).jpg

  • Nomination Tower of Banesto building at Plaça de Catalunya, Barcelona --MB-one 07:50, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion Sorry, I know the tower is the subject, but that left crop is really distracting, cutting off the banner text like that. --Peulle 11:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
     Support. I think it's good that only part of the advertising can be seen. I just wish the square and trees were a little brighter. I therefore vote with a weak pro and ask for discussion. -- Spurzem 13:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)  Support I agree --ArildV 07:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Peulle:​ Thanks for the review. I could crop a bit more of the advertising banner, to make it less distracting, if that helps. --MB-one 11:17, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Well, yes, personally I would crop it just to the right of the word "Ultra", to avoid cutting off words.--Peulle 08:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done cropped, as you suggested. --MB-one 14:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 08:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Warsaw 2023 012 Zygmunt Column and Tower Tops.jpg

  • Nomination Tops Sigismund's Column & Royal Castle Tower, Warsaw --Scotch Mist 07:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion Quality is good. But needs a more meaningful file name and on the file page a specific description of the image content instead of general information about Warsaw --Milseburg 14:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for your review - the file name is essentially compliant with QI guidelines (meaningful name\frequent categorizing), the caption includes image specific information and the description, as well as providing some background history contains direct Wikipedia links to both Sigismund's Column and the Royal Castle, which are also referenced in the categories. --Scotch Mist 08:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC) I don't think so. File name and caption are too general. In the long description you have to look for Sigismund's Column for a long time and Zygmunt's Tower is not mentioned at all. The content of the image are these two. Both are necessary. Everything else just obscures what is actually important. --Milseburg 09:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
    Given the relatively recent introduction of captions perhaps there should be a wider discussion on this subject relative to whether this image is acceptable for QI? --Scotch Mist 10:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO the file name clearly fulfils criterion 2 of the file renaming guideline Commons:File renaming. This guideline lists an example "File:Paris 319.jpg" as a meaningless or ambiguous name ("only broad location"). In addition, the English description is bad because it contains a large and confusing quantity of information about the city, not just about the subject of the photo. The Polish description is shorter, but just about the city and the photographer's gallery. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Agree with Robert. File name should be more specific, and English description contains information that belongs into a Wikipedia article, not into the description of "what does this picture show". Also, not sure if it is written anywhere, but I think if a picture has descriptions in multiple languages, they should be identical. In this case, Polish description is totally different from the English one. I'd rename the file to something like "Sigimunds Column and Zygmunds Tower in Warsaw 2023.jpg" and replace the English description with a translation of the Polish one. --Plozessor 04:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment When renaming a file, the existing file name in a case like this should remain unchanged as a substring, as it is obviously a sorting criterion for the uploader. In any case, I get a sore throat when standardization fanatics think they have to remove my image numbers or other abbreviations they don't understand from the file names of my photos. Correcting spelling mistakes or short(!) additions are of course ok. However, comprehensive image descriptions belong in the image description, that's what it's there for. However, it should not contain an essay on the entire history of the city, country and ruling houses, but a brief and accurate description of the object depicted. In any case, placed at the beginning and easy to find. If you want to write a novel behind it, fine, you can. --Smial 15:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
@Smial:​ Yeah, I would never rename someone else's file unless it is clearly wrong (say, it would be "Heathrow airport.jpg" when it actually shows Frankfurt airport). In this case, a name like "Warsaw_2023_012 Sigismunds Column and Royal Castle Tower.jpg" would be appropriate, but I'd still leave that to the uploader. --Plozessor 03:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Robert Flogaus-Faust:​ & @Plozessor:​ There are several pertinent issues in this discussion:
    • File Naming: Ideally, according to the naming “guidelines” (Commons:File naming), file names should be very specific with time information and without inappropriate terms or any confusing details, all of which could lead to some very long file names indeed (many names of nominated QI files are already ‘long’ even without including the recommended “year or date”). Realistically a balance generally has to be struck with the primary override that “the uploader’s choice should be honoured”. (“Renaming” files to avoid “ambiguity” (2) may not work in practice, especially when loading tens, or possibly hundreds, of files and seeking “harmonization” (4) of those files. “When in doubt, aim for a stable more generic name.”)
    • File Names v Captions v Descriptions: Presumably the recent introduction of “Captions” was not intended to simply repeat a detailed file name, or a relatively brief description, so presumably the caption is where a short description of the image should now be entered (for QI images an “accurate description on the file page”).
    • Descriptions: Certainly in the past there have been criticisms of including historical backgrounds of photos of places, monuments, et al, but also some have expressed praise for directly including such info along with the image, often a brief summary of some of the Wikipedia info with links to other Wikipedia pages (which is generally recommended within the Wikipedia\Wikimedia environment).
    • In summary, to achieve an appropriate balance (max info\min time) that will encourage the greatest number of contributions to Wikimedia Commons it would appear that File Names, Captions, Descriptions, and importantly also Categories, should be considered together in providing the overall level of detail that will in turn encourage further interest and wider use of all images uploaded, particularly QIs. --Scotch Mist 08:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose for now. Commons:File naming is not a guideline, but it also contains the following sentence: "The name should not consist primarily of a broad location, such as File:Paris 319.jpg, Ontario hill, or Japan train station, where the location is so large that only someone who knows the area very well can identify the image." My suggestion is that you could keep much of your naming scheme by adding the subject of the image. Even though it would be best if it came first in the file name, I suppose that it would be completely acceptahle after your image number, so that it does not disrupt your file naming scheme. In addition, at least in my opinion, a description should at least clearly say what can be seen on the image. Otherwise it is just not meaningful.--Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment @Robert Flogaus-Faust:​ Understand your opinion but would respectfully suggest some key points have been missed:
  • We have automated sequential file naming on uploads for a reason - this function may be seldom exploited by those uploading files of individual plants and animals but personally I would not have loaded thousands of files of places I have visited without this function. Your suggestion of adding details after the sequential image number will not work for the hundreds of files I intended to nominate for QI without first renaming every file (effectively defeating the whole purpose of using the automated naming function).
  • The objective in now having a separate 'Caption' has not been explained - is it simply to mirror a short 'Description'? Certainly I could 'cut and paste' each Caption into the Description but is this really the most efficient manner of bringing more files into Wikimedia Commons or should in future I simply not waste time on Captions? Or, am I missing something here?
  • The statement that "Commons:File naming is not a guideline" would appear to be incorrect from my reading of this page, and the deficient example referenced does not include a recommended "year or date" (which also apparently is not included in files uploaded by yourself and others and nominated for QI).
As intimated in my 'summary' above, with the purpose of the Commons being to build a media file repository available to all, the more efficient the uploading process the greater the repository that we can all help to build! Please reconsider your opposition to promoting this file (and others) for QI as I believe the file name meets basic requirements and all necessary information is contained on the 'image file page' if one considers the 'Caption' as relevant. If not, then it would seem there is no point in completing 'Captions' and I should modify my existing nominations accordingly but thank you for considering these additional comments! --Scotch Mist 06:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
O.k., understood (mostly). However, I cannot understand that you cannot find the time to have a maximum of five images per day renamed and possibly the captions added to your description fields. Better file names would be very helpful both to improve the visibility of your files in search engines and (for me) to have them moved to the appropriate quality image galleries ("categorization" via Commons:Quality images/Recently promoted). Almost every file with a too broad file name must be right-clicked and opened to understand where it should be moved to. BTW, it also takes some time for me to upload files with the upload wizard because of the lengthy forms that should be filled in. Commons:File naming has been a proposed guideline since 2009, but it is still tagged as a proposed guideline. Apparently, there has not been sufficient consensus yet. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 07:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for now. This is about quality, not quantity. Inaccurate file names and rambling image descriptions are common at Scotch Mist. I thought a brief note would be enough to get him to improve this practice. I didn't think it would be that difficult to convince him. QIC is not intended to be a mass-processing operation. Hence the limit of 5 per day. Less is also possible. For QI you can expect more effort in choosing the file name and formulating the image description than any automatic processes. Or you can forego the candidacy.--Milseburg (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment @Milseburg:​ Sorry, my mistake, I thought QI was primarily about the quality of the image and that while indexing information is of course important, it is secondary and therefore it should not be critical whether that information is contained in the File Name, the Caption, the Description and\or the Categories (each of which, or a combination, could potentially be used to aid in moving images to appropriate QI galleries). If the Caption contains information that you consider must also be contained in the File Name and\or Description, then clearly the Caption serves no purpose in this regard, but before I amend the Descriptions, and possibly the File Names, of already nominated images and hundreds of images I had intended to nominate for QI in the future, can you or @Robert Flogaus-Faust:​ please explain to me when I should enter information in the Caption and what form that information should take?? (PS I would respectfully suggest that my descriptions are not "rambling" and while it is understood that some background information to provide historical context to places visited may not have interest to many, there are some people who have apparently found this information and associated web links helpful!) --Scotch Mist 14:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Yes, these formalities play a role in a quality image in addition to the technical criteria. In this case, I would suggest the title: "Sigismund's Column and Royal Castle Tower, Warsaw" and the description "Tops of Sigismund's Column and the Royal Castle Tower in Warsaw", possibly linked. You should proceed in the same way for further nominations. In the short file descrirption of structured data it's already done but should also done in the summary. Your current approach does not meet QI standards. If adjusting is too time-consuming, simply nominate fewer images. In fact, I think it's less work to reduce title and description to the essentials. Remember that people interested in the images just want to be informed about the content of the images and do not want to go on a long educational journey. The place for that is somewhere else. No such a big thing. --Milseburg 16:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done ✓ Done @Robert Flogaus-Faust:​ @Milseburg:​ As outlined in 'File:Łódź_2023_13.jpg' discussion. --Scotch Mist 09:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 Support Thanks. Good quality. Pings don't work here, unfortunately. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support OK for QI now. --Milseburg 11:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 11:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Murmuration_(_agrégation)_d'un_groupe_d'étourneaux_sur_la_sebkha_de_Sijoumi.jpg

  • Nomination Murmuration (aggregation) of a group of starlings on the Sijoumi sabkhaI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2024. --Skander zarrad 07:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Velvet 06:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  OpposeLike the image but would like to see a effort to reduce the vignetting, particularly on the left. --GRDN711 12:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
    i will see tomorrow to fix the vignettage you see , particularly on the left. Thank you --Skander zarrad 13:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done i fix it, thank you --Skander zarrad 21:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment I can see that you have lightened the image overall in your latest upload (which is good) but the left corners are still darker than the rest indicating vignetting. --GRDN711 12:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Łódź 2023 41 Palace Fountain Maiden Tears.jpg

  • Nomination Maiden's Sad Expression - Tears of Fountain Sculpture in Łódź Palace Garden --Scotch Mist 06:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose disturbing artifacts, probably water drops. Sorry. --Moroder 10:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for review although of course there are "water drops" as the statue is in a water fountain (a different scenario from photographing a sculpture in a church), but the most prominent water drop appears like a 'tear' from the sad face of the maiden creating a unique image! --Scotch Mist 22:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done @Robert Flogaus-Faust:​ Have appended 'Description' with 'Caption' but now do not know if and when captions should be completed and their relevance, but perhaps that discussion is for another day! --Scotch Mist 15:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Thanks! I could accept this description. However, there should be also a rename request to something like File:Łódź 2023 41 Tears of Fountain Sculpture in Łódź Palace Garden.jpg or possibly File:Łódź 2023 41 Tears of Fountain Sculpture.jpg, for example. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done ✓ Done @Robert Flogaus-Faust:​ As outlined in 'File:Łódź_2023_13.jpg' discussion. --Scotch Mist 09:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Thanks. I removed my opposing vote. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Łódź_2023_13.jpg

  • Nomination View of Poznański Palace in Łódź --Scotch Mist 05:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose I guess all those wires are disturbing --Moroder 16:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Agree, but there is no way to take a photo from this perspective without the wires and perhaps why we should avoid installing overhead cables where possible! --Scotch Mist 06:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Wires are there, better to have a picture from a distance with the wires than one of these distorted over-"verticalized" pictures from near the building. Picture is good. --Plozessor 04:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for the file name and the description. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done @Robert Flogaus-Faust:​ Have appended 'Description' with 'Caption' but now do not know if and when captions should be completed and their relevance, but perhaps that discussion is for another day! --Scotch Mist 15:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Thanks! Could you also have the image renamed, please? Or possibly allow me to file a rename request, e.g. to File:Łódź_2023_13_Poznański_Palace.jpg? --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment @Robert Flogaus-Faust:​ Appreciate you taking the time to review this and other nominations and to present your views on file naming and descriptions, but it seems that while I have changed the description here in line with your wishes, I am still effectively being compelled (as promotion may be declined) to change a naming regime that has seemingly served me well for more than 500 QI promotions by a large number of different QI contributors. I respectfully think it would be more appropriate, for now, to remove your opposition (O) to this promotion (and others where the description has been changed in line with your views) until either proposed naming guidelines (which "are not intended to serve as standalone justification for renaming files") have been agreed or the use of Captions has been fully explained so we can proceed accordingly. [Have not ruled out future naming of files along the lines you have suggested, but while this may mean less work for you it will make the task of uploading large numbers of files more onerous, perhaps not only for me but for many others.] Thank you for considering this request! --Scotch Mist 10:39, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Thanks for your comment. Unfortunately, there is no reason to assume that there will be a file naming guideline any time soon, even though there is a proposal on Commons:Village pump/Proposals. However, Commons:File renaming is sufficiently clear and it has the advantage to be a very brief accepted guideline. Does it matter much for the quality of a name whether the city in the file name is Paris or a smaller city elsewhere? I don't think so. I could just submit my rename requests and strike my votes, but it appears that you might not like that at all. BTW, it is usual that the old name redirects to the new one after renaming. In addition, I suppose that your files would be sorted the same way after renaming them according to my suggestions. So while I have no intention to oppose all of your images because of their file names, I won't strike my votes either because I cannot understand why your file naming scheme must remain exactly as it is even if this means that your file names are too broad. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 15:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done ✓ Done @Robert Flogaus-Faust:​ While it is disappointing that I have yet to receive (either from yourself or Milseburg) an explanation on the use of Captions (which given this discussion are perhaps 'redundant') and after having appended my description you still oppose this QI nomination, I have renamed the image file. You will note that I have not used the name you suggested because of the 77 files I uploaded for Łódź, 66 files relate to the Palace and 27 of those were nominated as QIs. So, in order to differentiate these files without relying on the 'auto-numbering feature (which, following your advice, is now also to a large extent effectively redundant) new accurate but optimally brief file names must be constructed (which in future may considerably slow the uploading process and in effect reduce the number of images uploaded). Trust you will now review your opposition to the QI promotion of this image, and the other two images under 'Consensual review', and perhaps also review the three images currently awaiting review (May 24) for which I have also requested file renaming. Thank you. --Scotch Mist 08:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 16:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Dolfin-Wappen.svg

  • Nomination Coat of Arms of the House of Dolfin (Count)--ZuppaDiCarlo 12:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ashoppio 12:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am very conflicted,can such a small image be of quality? I would like to hear an opinion from others as well. Thank you. --GoldenArtists 13:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Since it is a SVG file the resolution doesn't count. Ashoppio 16:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support We had these discussions in the past, and there seems to be no rule that QI must be photos. This vector image seems to be good does not have any defects (I can't judge if it fully matches the original Coat of Arms though). --Plozessor 04:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strange colours, strange proportions, the "gold" does not shine, nothing is reminiscent of the historical originals, except that the number of table tennis balls on the count's crown and the other elements of the coat of arms are correct. In addition, the file is 1.4MB in size, which is quite a lot for a vector graphic, the advantage of which is supposed to be that it can be scaled to any size with a small file size. --Smial 12:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hi, I'm the author of the coat of arms. I don't know if you're familiar with the field of vectorized coats of arms (.SVG), but what you described seems like a comment written by a person who doesn't know the term "heraldry". 1) Strange colours: The colors chosen derive from the color palette of User:Sodacan, the greatest herald of Wikipedia and now the stylistic standard of the platform; 2) strange proportions: the proportions are based on the image I put in the sources in the file description, so it's not a concrete problem; 3) "gold" does not shine: until they create holograms for the heraldic representation of metals, every heraldist limits himself to the predefined reference colors (yellow=gold, grey=silver, and so on); 4) nothing recalls the historical originals: stylistic freedom exists in heraldry, the important thing is that the subjects and elements present are the same, without adding or deleting anything; 5) the file is 1.4MB in size: I will lower it to 1 megabyte. --ZuppaDiCarlo 17:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Yoonit,_Cyclingworld_Europe_2024,_Meerbusch_(P1170867).jpg

  • Nomination Yoonit transport bike at Cyclingworld Europe 2024 in Meerbusch --MB-one 21:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Background is disturbing a bit but overall quality is good for me. --Красный 03:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Disturbing background. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 14:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs. --Plozessor 06:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cluttered background with beheaded people -- Basile Morin 04:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry but I have to agree with the opposers here. Background is too disturbing. Nacaru 23:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Nacaru 23:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Sunrise_from_the_Vanjangi_hill_top.jpg

  • Nomination Sunrise from the summit of Vanjangi hills --IM3847 07:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Skander zarrad 07:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. CAs an the ring-shaped light reflex on the right spoils it. --Milseburg 15:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is a ring shaped glare on both sides. I don't know how to eliminate the rays artifact due to the shutter around the sun--Moroder 11:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hi @Milseburg:​, @Moroder:​ Can we consider [this image] --IM3847 05:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Looks better, but I think there's an additional problem with the composition. The person with the bottles is unfavorable and dominant in the image with his legs cut off. Also slight tilted. --Milseburg 09:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done with perceptive correction. --IM3847 20:34, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support To me it looks ok as it is (I would consider the halo rather an effect than a defect), but the retouched version seems ok also. Could consider slight perspective correction though, those distorted people in the foreground are looking a bit awkward. --Plozessor 06:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support As per Plozessor --Scotch Mist 11:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Circular line / halo at the lower corners and yellowish cast as if the white balance was wrong, or the colors oversaturated -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • A new version has been uploaded, however the CAs are still visible, and the colors wrong. See for example the jacket of the lady at the left making a selfie, it is partly pink and partly grey. Very odd. Due to the contrejour, it is likely that the sliders have been pushed too far in post-treatment. Unfortunately with moving subjects, you can't proceed HDR. There are also heavy distorsions on both sides, and a distracting object looking like a plastic bag at the left -- Basile Morin 03:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others, and CAs. --Sebring12Hrs 18:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Basile Morin 04:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

时间表(提名后8天)

  • 五 24 5月 → 六 01 6月
  • 六 25 5月 → 日 02 6月
  • 日 26 5月 → 一 03 6月
  • 一 27 5月 → 二 04 6月
  • 二 28 5月 → 三 05 6月
  • 三 29 5月 → 四 06 6月
  • 四 30 5月 → 五 07 6月
  • 五 31 5月 → 六 08 6月
  • 六 01 6月 → 日 09 6月