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Outdated translations are marked like this.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 12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 12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 December 22 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]] 10:54, 22 12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).


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

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:Cambio_de_la_guardia,_Anıtkabir,_Ankara,_Turquía,_2024-10-03,_DD_04.jpg

  • Nomination Change of the guard, Anıtkabir, Ankara, Turkey --Poco a poco 22:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Sorry, too blurry. --Alexander-93 22:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    ✓ New version, should be ok now. --Poco a poco 04:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Костел_Успіння,_Язловець,_вхід_SW,_2012_(Rbrechko,_61-212-0018).jpg

  • Nomination Portal in abandoned catholic church in Yazlovets, Ternopil region, Ukraine. --Rbrechko 13:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too soft IMO. --Benjism89 14:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Slightly unsharp in lower left, but acceptable IMO --Vsatinet 19:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Vsatinet. --Plozessor 05:52, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Olsztyn_2023_020.jpg

  • Nomination Olsztyn New Town Hall (Nowy Ratusz) --Scotch Mist 08:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Oppose I know it's intentional, but perspective should be corrected here to me. Feel free to send it to discussion. --Sebring12Hrs 09:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for your review - it was 'intentional' because given the many features of this building PC would IMO unrealistically distort at least one feature in an image of the complete building from this angle. --Scotch Mist 09:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    But with this angle it looks like the building is falling backwards, so that's not realistic either. --Sebring12Hrs 10:27, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Baya_weaver_bulding_its_nest.jpg

  • Nomination Baya weaver bird building its nest in Nepal (by Prasan Shrestha) --Gpkp 06:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Romzig 20:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Nice image, but very noisy. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Cadzand-Bad_Hotel_De_Blanke_Top_R01.jpg

  • Nomination Hotel De Blanke Top in Cadzand-Bad, Netherlands. -- MJJR 20:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Plozessor 07:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Temporarily oppose, but I will change my opinion, if the author crop half of the person on the left --Екатерина Борисова 23:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Oberwesel_im_Novembernebel.jpg

  • Nomination Oberwesel on the Rhine in November fog-- Rolf Kranz 15:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Nice mood and view. The lower right edge needs your attention. It looks different.--Milseburg 16:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strange motif in the right foreground. I added a note, otherwise good. --Sebring12Hrs 17:04, 19 December 2024
  •  Comment Thanks for the reviews. I have uploaded a new version.--Rolf Kranz 20:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Except of the mentioned part the first version was much better. This one is less sharp, tilted and overexposed.--Milseburg 14:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  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)
  •  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)
  •  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)
  •  Comment The picture is a panorama composed of two photos. With the intention of concentrating the focus on the medieval cityscape shrouded in fog, I cut off the sky in the upper part of the first version. A piece of the bush was missing in the right-hand area because I had held the camera a little too high. The generative extension failed. In the current third version, the cropping was done with the existing image material. The lighting conditions are also authentic.--Rolf Kranz 09:02, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me now -- Jakubhal 10:35, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Jakubhal 10:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

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

  • Nomination Sunset at beach Las Vistas at Playa de las Américas on Tenerife --Tuxyso 10:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Looks good, but dark - can you brighten it? --Mike Peel 22:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • imho not a good idea to further brighten it is 15 minutes before sunset. please take a look on the histogram, it is exposed well on the highlights --Tuxyso 23:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Same as previous (I've been to las Américas at sunset, so I know how this looks IRL. ;-) ) Thanks. Mike Peel 19:08, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
 Comment added implicit oppose --Plozessor 07:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Brightening the foreground would fix it for me, the beach is currently way too dark. Thanks. Mike Peel 08:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  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)
  • Milseburg, to the sharpness, thanks to my new Z 24-120 - it is a realy sharp lens, especially at a 24Mpx sensor. --Tuxyso 19:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Milseburg. --Plozessor 07:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I made minor improvements, please take another look, Mike Peel. --Tuxyso 14:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    •  Support That's it (4th version), that looks a lot better to me now, thanks for iterating. :) Thanks. Mike Peel 18:43, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support For the current (fourth version). Good quality golden hour picture -- Jakubhal 16:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Softening the contrast made the image a little less exciting for me. But still QI. --Milseburg 22:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Same here. --Plozessor 05:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Mike Peel (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

File:St_Maurice_church_in_Langenenslingen_(10).jpg

  • Nomination Saint Maurice church in Langenenslingen, BW, Germany. --Tournasol7 06:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry: truncated object and disturbing branches --F. Riedelio 16:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Not so disturbing to me. Let's see what others think. --Sebring12Hrs 20:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the combination of aspect ratio, the right part of the church cut off, and the branches in front of the spire are a poor composition IMO, even if the picture is technically good. --Plozessor 15:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Fashion changes - even in photography. I remember that a photo of a building, for example, should have a foreground if possible. That could be the branch of a tree. But now a branch on the side of the picture is considered a serious defect. Why? I like the photo presented here. -- Spurzem 19:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I quite like the photo and don't perceive those branches as a disturbance -- Jakubhal 05:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @SpurzemJakubhal:​ 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)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   ---- Jakubhal 05:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Neuruppin_Tempelgarten_asv2024-04_img7.jpg

  •  Comment Are you sure? The picture was not perspective corrected --A.Savin 21:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Of course I don't really know what king of prosessing you used here, but the gate looks asymmetrical with left side visually bigger than right side, and it's not come from the angle of shooting --Екатерина Борисова 00:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I can't see any issue with perspective here. --Sebring12Hrs 17:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Sebring12Hrs. One could consider to skew the upper left corner a bit downward, but it's definitely fine as it is. --Plozessor 05:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 10:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Hvítserkur_Sea_Stack,_Northwestern_Region,_Iceland,_20240715_1138_0855.jpg

  • Nomination Hvítserkur Sea Stack, Northwestern Region, Iceland --Jakubhal 04:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose While I understand this image provides visual context for the sea stack and is worth uploading, overall it seems too dark and the stack seems lost in the image. Also, the tourist on the beach is distracting. --GRDN711 05:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Thank you for review, I would like to ask for other opinions --Jakubhal 05:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I’ve updated the photo description to better reflect the scene. That said, pointing out a tiny figure in the image, barely the size of a dot, as a reason to decline it for being distracting feels a bit overly critical to me. Jakubhal 06:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have uploaded a new brightened version -- Jakubhal 05:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  • @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)
  • 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)
  • @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)
  • @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)
  • @Plozessor:​ All done, Thank you. --GRDN711 20:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The rock is sliglhtly dark imo (maybe are additional local adjustments of exposure or shadows possible) but overall good quality. The tourist is not a issue for QI imo.--ArildV 12:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks absolutely fine to me. If the rock is dark, it can be dark in the picture too.--Milseburg 14:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Milseburg. --Plozessor 17:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I think that this tourist figure is very useful because it helps to understand the size of the rock. The quality is good too. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

  • Nomination Basilica Cistern, Istanbul, Turkey --Poco a poco 05:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Too much noise. Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 07:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • New version, should be ok for QI --Poco a poco 04:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  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)
  •  Support The new version is acceptable for a picture taken in low light situation (the first version was not IMO). --Benjism89 10:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Plozessor 17:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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

  • Nomination Croatia, Šibenik, Tower of the Church of St. John (Crkva sv. Ivana) --Berthold Werner 14:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose I'm afraid the strong perspective correction you had to make here (16 mm and the photographer being really under the subject) make this tower look too much distorted. And the top of the tower is out of focus. Sorry --Benjism89 18:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC) Changing to neutral after the perspective was improved. --Benjism89 10:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Imo Ok. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 19:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm agree with Benjism89. Left side of tower seems not tilted, but curved. At the same time the right side of tower is straight and vertical. The perspective is overprocessed.Vsatinet 10:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have tried to improve the perspective (banana effect) --Berthold Werner 16:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I'd skew it a bit more (the upper left corner downward), but still it's IMO acceptable. --Plozessor 17:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Much better now. But yes, little additional perspective correction required (the upper let corner downward and uper right corner slightly upword). E.g. with skew or/and warp instruments. Vsatinet 19:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Next try. --Berthold Werner 16:18, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Thank you. Upper part of tower is slightly unsharp, but picture is very acceptable now IMO. Vsatinet 19:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Benjism89 10:12, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Swineherd_statue_in_Riedlingen_(2).jpg

  • Nomination Swineherd statue in Riedlingen, Baden-Württemberg, Germany. --Tournasol7 05:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • The subject is well depicted but too dark, would you try to enhance shadow? --Terragio67 07:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Imo it is not too dark, the sky is cloudy --Michielverbeek 07:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Hi Michielverbeek, I understand what you mean... My proposal is to make the photo this way with small changes... --Terragio67 13:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but I have not opened your link. Now the photo contains enough details for QI and the shadows are not strong --Michielverbeek 08:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  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)
  • More opininons please --Michielverbeek 06:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO good as it is now. --Plozessor 15:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Main subject is okay in my eyes but CAs in the background are too disturbing. --Milseburg 13:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  • @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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 13:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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

  • Nomination Topkapı Palace, Istanbul, Turkey --Poco a poco 03:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Remontees 21:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but looking at the other pictures in the category I come to the conclusion that the proportions are very distorted here (due to the perspective correction I suppose). Please discuss --Екатерина Борисова 07:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Екатерина Борисова --Milseburg (talk) 14:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, too much distorsion. --Bgag 04:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much distortion. It seems like inaccurate PC. Vsatinet 12:04, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Vsatinet 12:09, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

File:Naso_unicornis_A74259020241123.jpg

  • Nomination Naso unicornis, Rio de Janeiro Aquarium. --Rjcastillo 00:57, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not sharp enough for me, sorry --I.Mahesh 01:56, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
  • I disagree. let's validate other opinions. --Rjcastillo 02:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharpness acceptable for the situation IMO. --Plozessor 05:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support As per Plozessor --Scotch Mist 10:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Difficult situation or not, the fish is too much blurred. --Sebring12Hrs 01:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

  • Nomination Willi Schmidt: Große Liegende, Frankfurt --Mike Peel 09:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Background needs a perspective improvement --Michielverbeek 10:04, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Perspective tweaked, does that look better? There's limited scope for adjustment before the statue starts being distorted. Thanks. Mike Peel 11:25, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
  • 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)
  •  Support Actually this shouldn't go to Discussions without a vote. But anyway: The picture was taken downward. "Fixing" the perspective so that the background is straight would make the statue appear very unnatural - if you want a picture of that statue with a straight background then take it from the front, not from above. But a picture from above has its right to exist and IMO the current perspective is a good compromise. --Plozessor 05:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good and natural in my eyes. -- Екатерина Борисова 01:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality with good balance of perspective. --Scotch Mist 10:52, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Bad file name --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
    • File renamed. Thanks. Mike Peel 18:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
       Comment Opposing vote was stricken. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 10:31, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:46, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

  • Nomination Falco cherrug at the Bavarian Hunting Falconry Center in Tambach Castle Wildlife Park during the birds of prey flight demonstration --Ermell 06:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Some parts of the bird are blown out. Fixable? --Екатерина Борисова 02:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for the review.Ermell 10:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
  • It helps if you decline than I send it to CR. --Ermell 20:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
  • What do you think? --Ermell 22:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. --Plozessor 05:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support On balance - good quality (edge of wing blown out is relatively minor compared with the high quality of detail of the rest of the falcon). --Scotch Mist 09:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:45, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

时间表(提名后8天)

  • 六 14 12月 → 日 22 12月
  • 日 15 12月 → 一 23 12月
  • 一 16 12月 → 二 24 12月
  • 二 17 12月 → 三 25 12月
  • 三 18 12月 → 四 26 12月
  • 四 19 12月 → 五 27 12月
  • 五 20 12月 → 六 28 12月
  • 六 21 12月 → 日 29 12月
  • 日 22 12月 → 一 30 12月