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Outdated translations are marked like this.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 6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 6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 June 09 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]] 22:16, 9 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 9, 2024

June 8, 2024

June 7, 2024

June 6, 2024

June 5, 2024

June 4, 2024

June 3, 2024

June 2, 2024

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 23, 2024

May 19, 2024

May 18, 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:Common_Dandelion_Radès_forest.jpg

  • Nomination Common Dandelion Radès forest. By User:Smailtn --TOUMOU 08:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Grainy --Poco a poco 09:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The criticism is not entirely unjustified. Nevertheless: It is an atmospheric and sharp image. I like it and I am in favor of QI. -- Spurzem 10:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Poco a poco. In addition, this image was clearly miscategorized (no flowers visible, just fruits) and also misidentified (angular stem, achenes very different from Taraxacum officinale). --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Velo_24,_Berlin_(VB243553).jpg

  • Nomination Steppenwolf pedelec citybike at VELOBerlin 2024 at Tempelhofer Feld, Berlin --MB-one 18:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 18:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, but the background is too cluttered. The cut off person is quite distracting. --Zinnmann 20:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Zinnmann. --Sebring12Hrs 07:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 09:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Poestlingsbergkirche,_Linz_(P1130983).jpg

  • Nomination Wallfahrtskirche zu den Sieben Schmerzen Mariä auf dem Pöstlingberg, Linz --MB-one 21:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment This looks somehow tilted. The main church is fine but the other buildings (especially on the left) are looking distorted. --Plozessor 04:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for the review --MB-one 17:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 05:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are burned out details at the buildings and  Level of detail too low --Augustgeyler 18:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler. --Sebring12Hrs 11:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 09:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Une_abeille_entrain_de_butiner.jpg

  • Nomination a bee foragingI, 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 19:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. Please include categories for location before nomination --MB-one 08:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment okay, i will do when i return home --Skander zarrad 11:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Depth of field issues. --Sebring12Hrs 15:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The entire bee is in focus. I'm not terribly concerned that not every part of every flower is. ReneeWrites 19:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 09:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Une_abeille_entrain_de_butiner_2.jpg

  • Nomination a bee foraging 2I, 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 19:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Depth of field issues. --Sebring12Hrs 15:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support This one's more tricky, as not the entire body of the bee is in focus, but the parts that are are amazingly detailed. I also adore the pose. I doubt it'll pass review but it's worth giving a shot. ReneeWrites 19:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 09:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Clark_Lake_Park_in_Kent,_Washington_-_29.jpg

  • Nomination Clark Lake Park in Kent, Washington --Roc0ast3r 04:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment It seems perspective needs to be improved. --Sebring12Hrs 07:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 18:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective is still not within the rules and level of detail is very low here. --Augustgeyler 18:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 09:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

File:At_London_2024_109.jpg

  • Nomination Roadworks on Baker Street, London, revealing underground piping. --Mike Peel 07:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Quality good but slightly leaning out on both sides! --Scotch Mist 15:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Perspective redone, does that look better? Thanks. Mike Peel 21:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Left ok now but right still slightly leaning out! --Scotch Mist 06:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Ah, I used the lamppost on the right, but guess it's not straight. Perspective redone using part of a building, is that better? Thanks. Mike Peel 07:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 09:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the sky and some details next to it are burned out. --Augustgeyler 20:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 09:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Jacobite_train_from_the_rear_at_Mallaig_station.jpg

  • Nomination The Jacobite train, seen from the rear at Mallaig rail station in Mallaig, Scotland. --Grendelkhan 07:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low --Augustgeyler 08:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't understand. It's in focus and well exposed. What kind of detail is missing? Grendelkhan 10:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Strong processing of your camera (phone) led to loss of most of the detail of any texture / surface in that image. It is a common issue with mobile phones. And in this case, due to dimmed light, the effect is quite strong.--Augustgeyler 10:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Level of Detail seems borderline to me (as Augustgeyler said, smartphones hardly take good pictures except in bright sunlight). However, the picture is also leaning out and underexposed. --Plozessor 07:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 18:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Mallaig_coastal_view.jpg

  • Nomination The coastline at Mallaig, Scotland, as seen from a little ways up a hill. --Grendelkhan 07:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the level of detail is too low here due to intense camera processing. --Augustgeyler 10:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 18:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Εκπαιδευτήρια_Μπαχλιτζανάκη_2484.jpg

  • Nomination The former Bahlitzanakis school, Piraeus. --C messier 20:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, but due to intense perspective correction the proportions of that building apear too annatural. --Augustgeyler 21:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • More opinions please. --C messier 04:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral. But I agree with Augustgeyler. -- Spurzem 08:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I agree with the too strong distortion, but this should be fixable by skewing it (making the right side lower/smaller). --Plozessor 03:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler -- Екатерина Борисова 03:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 18:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Yellow-legged gull (Larus michahellis) immature Sfax.jpg

  • Nomination Slender-billed gull (Chroicocephalus genei) immature --Charlesjsharp 11:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Syrio 12:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm not opposed just wrong identification of the species, it is not a Slender-billed_gull but a Yellow-legged gull --El Golli Mohamed 20:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support El Golli Mohamed You could simply fix the category ;) --Plozessor 03:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done It was my error and El Golli Mohamed is right to wait for me to correct it. Charlesjsharp 15:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 11:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

File:A830_in_Mallaig_city_center.jpg

  • Nomination The A830 road as it passes through the city center of Mallaig, Scotland. --Grendelkhan 07:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Level of detail too low for me, sorry --PantheraLeo1359531 07:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Disagree, I think it's fine. Let's discuss this. ReneeWrites 14:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't follow, please explain. It's in focus and well exposed at around 12 MP; what kind of detail do you mean? --Grendelkhan 14:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Detail seems fine for me. --MB-one 20:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low. Just so much mobile phone processing made any texture disappear. --Augustgeyler 08:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment There are at least fifty other QI taken with this phone model; I don't think that the processing is generally held to be a problem. See https://w.wiki/AK7R. Grendelkhan 11:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. The quality in this images sometimes show way less detail than a 12 years old DSLR would provide. In some scenarios with bright light nad good contrast the results might be OK. But in some other situations, like here, the over processing really makes the result too poor to become QI. --Augustgeyler 18:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of detail, overprocessed. That there are QIs taken with a Pixel XL doesn't make all Pixel XL pictures QIs. --Plozessor 03:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --August Geyler (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

File:A85_along_Oban_coast_at_blue_hour.jpg

  • Nomination The A85 road along the coast in Oban, Scotland, at dusk. --Grendelkhan 07:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --N. Johannes 15:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please, fix the perspective to get verticals vertical (see right side) --Poco a poco 17:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Fixed the perspective. Grendelkhan 05:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Better, there is a slight cw tilt and a bit of noise but overall I move to  Neutral now Poco a poco 19:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, lack of detail, halos around the object. Not bad for a night shot with a smartphone, but IMO not good enough for a QI. --Plozessor 14:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Εκπαιδευτήρια_Μπαχλιτζανάκη_2483.jpg

  • Nomination Former Bahlitzanakis school, Piraeus. --C messier 20:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, but there was to much perspective corretion involved. The building looks annatural. --Augustgeyler 21:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support QI really is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't kind of ordeal, huh? The picture's fine, let's discuss this. ReneeWrites 15:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment yes please dicuss. It is not only about PC. It think it was taken from a position too low and too close, forcing the camera to be tilted up too much. --Augustgeyler 21:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me -- Spurzem 08:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The lines are vertical now. But I am sorry, the perspective corrections are borderline. Due the a short distance and very low point of view the verticals had to be corrected very much resulting an a bit too unnatural reproduction of that building. --August Geyler (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 18:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Sabine_Scholt_at_Republica_2024.jpg

  • Nomination Sabine Scholt and Tom Buhrow at Re:publica 2024 in Berlin --Kritzolina 19:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not enough detail IMO --MB-one 23:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good for me. I see enough detail at Sabine Scholt. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 16:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Spurzem. Absolutely acceptable for available light photography, and very good composition. --Smial 15:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 07:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Une_larve_de_coccinelle_qui_dévore_un_pucerons.jpg

  • Nomination A ladybug larva that devours an aphidI, 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 20:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not enough DoF to me. --Sebring12Hrs 08:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • short dof, but the head and the prey are clearly visible, and no time to close further given the speed --Skander zarrad 16:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I improved the overall sharpness a bit, but I can't increase the dof --Skander zarrad 19:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Please do not cancel my vote ! Are you serious ? --Sebring12Hrs 09:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Dear Sebring12Hrs I don't think he canceled your vote, he is new her, he want just fix the photo,Thank you for your understanding TOUMOU 22:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  • But he can't fix lack of DOF.  Oppose for same reason. --Plozessor 03:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 20:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Anne_Kaun_at_Republica_2024_04.jpg

  • Nomination Anne Kaun at Re:publica 2024 in Berlin --Kritzolina 11:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Peulle 13:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I think the woman is not sharp enough and ther is some lack of detail. No QI for me. --Alexander-93 16:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support If I take into account that this is not a studio shot, but was photographed in available light and that the image is significantly larger than six mpixels, then the quality is quite acceptable. --Smial 13:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 08:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Not even sharp when downscaled to 3 MP. --Plozessor 03:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lacks sharpness. Sorry.--Ermell 20:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 20:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Belle-dame_entrain_de_butiner.jpg

  • Nomination Vanessa cardui foragingI, 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 20:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •  Oppose Overexposed and depth of field is too small, sorry. --Красный 15:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
    on for depth of field? the head is very clear --Skander zarrad 16:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
    Returned to "Decline", if you disagree — change to "Discuss" instead. Head is clear, yes. But half of both wings is not in focus, that is rather disturbing. Красный 16:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
    ✓ Done I reworked the exposure, the impression of overexposure should no longer be there. Unfortunately the DoF is concentrated on the body of the animal THANKS :) --Skander zarrad 18:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Declined   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Летний_сад._Аллегория_дня2.jpg

  • Nomination Allegory of Day (bust in Summer Garden), Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 02:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ploozessor 04:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs some perspective correction and there are some really prominent blue fringes to the right. --C messier 20:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 14:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA in the upper right corner --Nikride 19:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 21:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

File:La_cathédrale_de_la_Major_vue_depuis_le_parvis_du_Mucem.jpg

  • Nomination La Major Cathedral of Marseille seen from the Mucem forecourt. --Remontees 17:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Good picture but needs slight perspective correction --Plozessor 04:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Is it better? --Remontees 22:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
      •  Comment Others might still find it not 'vertical' enough, but IMO it's good now. --Plozessor 06:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
        •  Comment I agree with you, I corrected the verticals. Thanks for your help. --Remontees 22:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 12:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's leaning too much to me, please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 07:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Perspective is ok for me. --Zinnmann 11:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose There is just a little to much distortion here, especially on the right side of the cathedral. --Augustgeyler 18:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --August Geyler (talk) 18:41, 7 June 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)
  •  Support: good for QI. --The Cosmonaut 03:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose: Distortion is too extreme. --Zinnmann 15:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem --Augustgeyler 21:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO acceptable --XRay 04:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per XRay. --Sebring12Hrs 09:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable --Poco a poco 11:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --XRay 04:47, 6 June 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)
  •  Support Good quality --Jakubhal 05:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support It is an SVG, level of detail is good. --Augustgeyler 21:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Appropriate credit should be given to the SVG elements you used. E.g. the fish are from File:Coat of Arms of the House of Dolfin.svg but those are not listed anywhere in the description. I also wonder why you chose a depiction of the griffins with short tails when they have long, lion-like tails in all the source images or why both wings are pointed up when in all the source images they have one wing pointed up and one down. ReneeWrites 08:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done The source thing is done, by the way, sa I told to the other, there is free stylistic form for the blazon (please read in the file desc {coa blazon}) --ZuppaDiCarlo 11:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

日程表(推薦から8日目)

  • 土 01 6月 → 日 09 6月
  • 日 02 6月 → 月 10 6月
  • 月 03 6月 → 火 11 6月
  • 火 04 6月 → 水 12 6月
  • 水 05 6月 → 木 13 6月
  • 木 06 6月 → 金 14 6月
  • 金 07 6月 → 土 15 6月
  • 土 08 6月 → 日 16 6月
  • 日 09 6月 → 月 17 6月