Commons:Кандидати за квалитетни слики

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Quality images candidates and the translation is 86% 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.

Оди на предлози
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎svenska • ‎українська
float

Ова се кандидати за квалитетни слики. Имајте во превид дека ова не е исто што и избрани слики. Покрај ова, доколку сакате само да добиете мислење за вашите слики, поставете ги на страницата Фотографски критики.

Цел[edit]

Целта на квалитетните слики е да се даде поддршка на луѓето кои се темелот на Ризницата, поединечните корисници кои ставаат уникатни слики и со тоа ја прошируваат нашава збирка. Додека избраните слики ги истакнуваат апсолутно најдобрите слики на Ризницата, Квалитетните слики имаат за цел да ги поттикнат корисниците да се залагаат да ја обогатат Ризницата со квалитетни слики.
Покрај ова, квалитетните слики треба да бидат и надгледен материјал каде другите корисници ќе можат визуелно да ги видат методите за подобрување на нивните слики.

Напатствија[edit]

Сите предложени слики треба да бидат дело на корисници на Ризницата.

За предлагачите[edit]

Подолу се дадени општи напатствија за Квалитетни слики, а подетални критериуми ќе најдете на страниицата Напатствија за слики.

Услови за страницата на сликата[edit]
  1. Статус на авторски права. Кандидатите за Квалитетни слики мора да се подигнати на Ризницата под соодветна лиценца. Целосен преглед на условите за лиценцирање ќе најдете на COM:CT.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Quality images shall have a meaningful file name, be properly categorized and have an accurate description on the file page in one or more languages. It is preferred, but not mandatory, to include an English description.
  4. No advertisements or signatures in image. Copyright and authorship information of quality images should be located on the Image page and may be in the image metadata, but should not interfere with image contents.


Создавач[edit]

Сликите мора да се дело на Викимедијанец за воопшто да се квалификуваат за статусот на квалитетна слика. Ова значи дека слики од места како Flickr немаат право на учество. (Избраните слики не подлежат на ова правило.) Фотографските репродукции на дводимензионални уметнички дела направени од Викимедијанци се дозволени (и треба да се лиценцираат со „PD-old“ според правилата на Ризницата). If an image is promoted despite not being the creation of a Wikimedian, the QI status should be removed as soon as the mistake is detected.

Технички услови[edit]

Повеќе за овие кротериуми на Commons:Напатствија за слики.

Resolution[edit]

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media.

This does not apply to vector graphics (SVG).

Квалитет на сликите[edit]

Дигиталните слики знаат да страдаат од разни проблеми кои произгледуваат од правењето на сликата и нејзината обработка, како на пример шум, проблеми со JPEG компресија, недостиг на информации во сенливи или светли делови, или проблеми со доловувањето на боите. Треба да се внимава на сите овие нешта.

Композиција и осветлување[edit]

Распоредот на субјектот во рамките на сликата треба да прдоинесува кон истата. Предметите во преден и заден план не смеат да пречат. осветлувањето и фокусот исто така имаат свој удел во конечниот резултат; субјектот треба да биде остар, јасен и добро осветлен.

Значење[edit]

Нашата главна цел е да поттикнеме придонесување на квалитетни слики на Ризницата, кои се од големо значење за проектите на Викимедија.

Како да номинирате[edit]

Едноставно додајте ред од овој облик на врвот од делот за номинации на страницата Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

File:ИмеНаСликаОвде.jpg|{{/Nomination|1=Многу краток опис  --~~~~ |2=}}

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

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

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

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


Number of nominations[edit]

Carefully select your best images to nominate. No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.


Проценка на слики[edit]

Секој регистриран корисник може да оценува предлози.
При проценувањето на слики, оценувачот мора да ги има на ум истите напатствија како и предлагачот.

Како да оценувате[edit]

How to update the status

Оценувајте ја секоја слика внимателно. Отворете ја во полна резолуција, и проверете дали ги задоволува критериумите за квалитет.

  • Ако решите да го поддржите предлогот, променете го релевантниот ред од
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ИмеНаСликаОвде.jpg|{{/Promotion|Многу краток опис --Потпис на предлагачот |Зошто ви се допадна. --~~~~}}

Со други зборови, сменете го шаблонот од /Nomination на /Promotion и ставете свој потпис, и по можност, краток коментар.

  • Ако решите да ја одбиете номинацијата, променете го релевантниот ред од
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ИмеНаСликаОвде.jpg|{{/Decline|Многу краток опис --Потпис на предлагачот|Зошто не ви се допадна. --~~~~}}

Со други зборови, сменете го шаблонот од /Nomination на /Decline и ставете свој потпис, и по можност, да изјавите кој критериум сликата не го задоволува (можете да користите наслови од заглавјата во напатствијата). Ако сликата има многу проблеми, тогаш споменете само 2 до 3 најголеми проблема, или пак додајте multiple problems. Кога одбивате еден предлог морате да објасните причините на страницата за разговор на предлагачот - како правило, бидете фини и охрабрувачки! Во оваа порака треба да понудите поподробно објаснување на причините за вашетоодбивање на сликата.

Напомена: Оценувајте ги прво најстарите слики.


Период на мирување и унапредување[edit]

Доколку нема примедби во рок од 2 дена (точно: 48 часа) по оценувањето, сликата станува унапредена (избрана) или неуспешна, според добиените оценки. Ако имате примедба, само променете го статусот на Discuss и сликата ќе биде преместена во делот наречен Consensual review (Оценка по договор).

Како да донесете одлука[edit]

QICbot автоматски го средува ова 2 дена по донесувањето на одлуката, и избраните слики се складираат во Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted во исчекување на категоризација пред автоматски да се внесат во соодветните страници за Квалитетни слики.

Ако сметате дека сте пронашле исклучително добра слика достојна за статусот Избрана слика, тогаш предложете ја и на Кандидати за избрана слика.

  • Сликите во исчекување на оценување ја означуваат номинацијата со сино.
  • Сликите кои ги оценувачот ги прифатил ја означуваат номинацијата со зелено
  • Сликите кои ги оценувачот ги отфрлил ја означуваат номинацијата со зелено

Неоценети слики (номинација со сино)[edit]

Номинираните (предложените) слики кои не побудиле интерес за нивно оценување (било позитивно или негативно), или договор (еднаков број на негативни оценки колку и позитивни во договорниот процес) треба да се отстранат од страницата по 8 дена, да се архивираат во Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives февруари 2016 и на сликата да ѝ се додаде Category:Unassessed QI candidates.

Процес на оценување по договор[edit]

Оценувањето по договор (consensual review) е процес кој се применува во случаи каде горенаведената процедура не е доволна бара повеќе дискусии и мислења.

Како да побарате оценување по договор[edit]

Ако сакате да побарате оценување по договор (consensual review), само променете го текстот /Promotion, /Decline во /Discuss и додајте го вашиот коментар веднаш под оценките. Потоа за еден ден автоматски бот ќе го премести ова во делот за оценување по договор.

Испраќајте слики за оценување по договор само слики кои веќе се поддржани/одбиени. Доколку, како оценувал, не можете да донесете одлука, тогаш додајте го својот коментар, но оставете го кандидатот на оваа страница.

Правила за оценување по договор[edit]

Видете Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Превчитување на страницата: purge this page's cache

Contents

Nominations[edit]

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures are only working on this page if you have Javascript enabled. If you do not have Javascript enabled please manually sign with

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 00:31, 13 февруари 2016 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.

February 12, 2016[edit]

[[Category:]]

February 11, 2016[edit]

February 10, 2016[edit]

February 9, 2016[edit]

February 8, 2016[edit]

February 7, 2016[edit]

February 6, 2016[edit]

February 4, 2016[edit]

February 3, 2016[edit]

Consensual review[edit]

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 Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and Symbol support vote.svg 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".


Consensual Review[edit]

File:Kazan_Cathedral_Saint_Petersburg.jpg[edit]

Kazan Cathedral Saint Petersburg.jpg

  • Предлог Kazan Cathedral in Saint Petersburg 1905. --Moroder 18:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Дискусија
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Badly posterized sky. A pity, as this could have been a wow motif --A.Savin 19:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'd like some other opinion --Moroder 17:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 09:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

File:028_2014_08_04_Urlaub_Sulden.jpg[edit]

028 2014 08 04 Urlaub Sulden.jpg

  • Предлог New Parish Church of St. Gertraud. --F. Riedelio 16:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Дискусија
  • {{o}} Too much noise for a quality image.--Rftblr 18:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not see an overabundance of noise, other than the mountains when very zoomed in. Please point to the areas that are too noisy. --Balon Greyjoy 15:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The whole shadow area of the church exhibits noticeable noise. Some of what at first glance appears to be stains on the facade, is actually horizontal banding noise (horizontal bright stripes above the windows on the apse). For me this is not quality. --Rftblr 23:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

✓ Done New developed version (Lightroom V6.4) uploaded. Additional noise decrease in Corel PaintShop Pro X7.

Info: The photo was made in RAW-format (.cr2), converted in Lightroom to .dng. and exported to .jpg. --F. Riedelio 14:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I withdraw my opposition. However I think you overdid the noise reduction on the top half of the aspe. Everything else looks OK now. Still, another reviewer should decide. --Rftblr 14:29, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice composition, but really too much noise, please look to the grass, sorry --Michielverbeek 23:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 00:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Eiffel tower (368).JPG[edit]

Eiffel tower (368).JPG

  • Предлог Eiffel Tower in Paris, France --Rijinatwiki 08:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Дискусија
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Many chromatic aberrations. The tower is also leaning left a bit --A.Savin 17:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CAs and disturbing branches at the left. Composition could be better, dark area at the right.--XRay 18:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --XRay 18:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Jardín Botánico Olarizu 03.jpg[edit]

Jardín Botánico Olarizu 03.jpg

  • Предлог Botanical Garden of Olarizu. Vitoria-Gasteiz, Basque Country, Spain --Basotxerri 20:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Дискусија
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ermell 08:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree, too dark for the real light situation --Hubertl 10:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @Hubertl: Some s-curving might help to get better exposure, but the image is also blurred by noise reduction, not fixable. -- Smial 09:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 05:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

File:2014_08_18_007_Weingut_Kimich_Deidesheim.jpg[edit]

2014 08 18 007 Weingut Kimich Deidesheim.jpg

  • Предлог Winery Kimich --F. Riedelio 13:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Дискусија
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportGood quality. --Jacek Halicki 13:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSky overexposed and eating in to neighbouring detail, otherwise good. --Prosthetic Head 16:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 09:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Soodla jõgi. 03.jpg[edit]

Soodla jõgi. 03.jpg

  • Предлог Soodla river (by Aleksandr Abrosimov). Kruusamägi 09:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Одбиено
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 09:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much noise reduction, has eaten fine detail. --C messier 15:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with C messier. --Rftblr 22:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Hubertl 22:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

File:2014_Otmuchów,_kościół_śś._Mikołaja_i_Franciszka_Ksawerego_01.JPG[edit]

2014 Otmuchów, kościół śś. Mikołaja i Franciszka Ksawerego 01.JPG

  • Предлог Saints Nicholas and Francis Xavier church in Otmuchów 1 --Jacek Halicki 00:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Дискусија
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 04:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunate light situation, with overexposed sky at the left of the church. --C messier 14:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 21:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Should be slightly turned anti-clockwise to make the church upright. --Rftblr 22:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good image.-- Шухрат Саъдиев 13:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 09:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

File:2014_Stary_Paczków,_kościół_Wszystkich_Świętych_02.JPG[edit]

2014 Stary Paczków, kościół Wszystkich Świętych 02.JPG

  • Предлог Church of All Saints in Stary Paczków 1 --Jacek Halicki 00:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Дискусија
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --F. Riedelio 12:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The sky is nearly completely blown. Please discuss. --C messier 14:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm sorry Jacek but I agree to Cmessier, the sky does not look nice --Michielverbeek 07:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 21:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cloudy sky is ok for me.--Ermell 09:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Burnt sky, not fixable. -- Smial 09:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 09:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Benz Vito Tourer W447 Rückansicht.jpg[edit]

Mercedes-Benz Vito Tourer W447 Rückansicht.jpg

  • Предлог Mercedes-Benz Vito Tourer W447 --Basotxerri 18:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Дискусија
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Background tilted cw. --Cccefalon 04:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Tilted CCW. Thank you. --Basotxerri 17:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose car is not centered, image does not look balanced --Rftblr 22:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tight crop at the right -- Spurzem 23:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose-- Шухрат Саъдиев 13:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 09:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Benz Vito Tourer W447 Vorderansicht.jpg[edit]

Mercedes-Benz Vito Tourer W447 Vorderansicht.jpg

  • Предлог Mercedes-Benz Vito Tourer W447 --Basotxerri 18:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Дискусија
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok --Cccefalon 04:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose car is not centered, image does not look balanced --Rftblr 22:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tight crop at the left -- Spurzem 23:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose-- Шухрат Саъдиев 13:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 09:48, 12 February 2016 (UTC))

File:Kamchatka_Brown_Bear_near_Dvuhyurtochnoe_on_2015-07-23.png[edit]

Kamchatka Brown Bear near Dvuhyurtochnoe on 2015-07-23.png

  • Предлог A Kamchatka Brown Bear (wild) near Dvuhyurtochnoe Kamchatka taken on July 23rd, 2015. --Rftblr 17:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Поддршка
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Cccefalon 20:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong format: photos should be jp(e)g, not PNG --A.Savin 23:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This batch of photos is my first nomination to QI, I checked them according to the Commons:Image guidelines. If jp(e)g is a requirement for quality photos, why is this not stated there? If it is necessary I will of course retract these nominations, make jpg versions, and make new nominations. --User:rftblr 7:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have now uploaded a JPG version and linked it to the PNG version. I will do this for my other candidates as well. Do I have to retract the PNG version from QI and nominate the JPG version? --User:rftblr 8:03, 8 February 2016(UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment you can keep it as it is, in fact, it´s the same picture. --Hubertl 08:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 08:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Can you explain, A.Savin, why this picture should be uploaded as jpg and not in png? --Hubertl 10:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I also do not understand this request. Our QIC rules explicetly suggest a resolution for Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF). So what is the problem with png (which also is a FREE format)? --Cccefalon 10:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
See my comment at #File:Mischek_Tower_Vienna_from_W_on_2013-06-14.png. --A.Savin 16:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
You might start a request for changing the rules and find enough supporters for such a motion. But as long as our rules allow png, you cannot just start a mass oppose for png format images of user RftBlr. Sorry to say so, but it is kind of disruptive. --Cccefalon 09:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
+1 -- Smial 11:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good for me. -- Spurzem 08:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good work. -- Smial 11:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A beautiful, well balanced and composed picture. I see no reason for the objection the grounds of format, in fact many consider PNG to be a 'freer' format than JPG (patent concerns). --Prosthetic Head 12:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Hubertl 09:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Ares_Tower_Vienna_from_SW_on_2015-07-10.png[edit]

Ares Tower Vienna from SW on 2015-07-10.png

  • Предлог The Ares Tower in Vienna seen from the south-west on July 10th, 2015. --Rftblr 17:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Поддршка
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality although photographs should rather be saved as JPG. --Code 17:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong format: photos should be jp(e)g, not PNG --A.Savin 23:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This batch of photos is my first nomination to QI, I checked them according to the Commons:Image guidelines. If jp(e)g is a requirement for quality photos, why is this not stated there? If it is necessary I will of course retract these nominations, make jpg versions, and make new nominations. --User:rftblr 7:25, 8 February 2016(UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment add a jpg for previewing purposes. rftblr --Hubertl 08:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 10:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have now uploaded a JPG version and linked it to the PNG version. --User:rftblr 19:34, 8 February 2016(UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 08:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support certainly well above the average quality -- Smial 11:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp photo, good perspective a Q1one and a warm welcome to Rftblr --Michielverbeek 08:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Hubertl 09:50, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Museu da inconfidencia.JPG[edit]

Museu da inconfidencia.JPG

  • Предлог Museum of the Inconfidência, Ouro Preto, Brazil (by Ricardotakamura) --ArionEstar 21:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Дискусија
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 21:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. The overall quality is very bad. Nearly all details are gone. I don't know what happened in the postprocessing but this looks like upscaled ore somewhat. Hard to say. This cannot be QI in my eyes. --Code 14:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • {{o}} CA, noise, posterisation. Sharpening and noise reduction fight against each other. Somewhat too high colour saturation. striked, because without signature --Hubertl 09:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC),br/>
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I would say that for a 30 second exposure the loss of detail is not too bad, if it were downscaled until the detail loss was imperceptable it would still be a large enough image. It is only when viewing at original (very high) resolution that the flaws become very visible. --Prosthetic Head 13:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Severe CAs, perspective not corrected. At full resolution the quality is not acceptable, but downsized at nearly 6 Mpix, the level of detail is OK. And some overexposure on the walls near the lamps. --C messier 15:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Heavily processed (sharpened?), real image quality is not high enough at this resolution. --Shansov.net 02:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Шухрат Саъдиев 13:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose nothing to add. --Carschten 10:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Carschten 10:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

File:May2015 Volgograd img06 View from Mamaev Hill.jpg[edit]

May2015 Volgograd img06 View from Mamaev Hill.jpg

  • Предлог Volgograd: view from Mamaev Hill --A.Savin 15:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Дискусија
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality: An unfavourable image section (too much foreground), right edge of the image is out of focus. --F. Riedelio 08:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry please other opinion: it is the view as it is at this point, and where do you see any blurred areas? --A.Savin 14:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    • @A.Savin: Please see annotations. --F. Riedelio 13:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I understand your issues very well, but I don't get the problem. --A.Savin 16:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
@A.Savin: Please see annotations for my preferred cropping. --F. Riedelio 09:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I would say too much sky, but the horizon is at the one third of the image. The composition actually lies at thirds (one sky, one city, one foreground). The lack of sharpness descripted isn't something worth declining (or mentioning). --C messier 15:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me is good --Livioandronico2013 21:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Шухрат Саъдиев 13:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overall somewhat weak sharpness, blurred details at margins. No double standards, please. -- Smial 18:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I never nominate pictures without looking if they are sharp enough. That you ape my comment is just stupid, however quite your usual level (Deutsche Wikipedia as it is). --A.Savin 19:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
That's exactly your double standards. q.e.d. ;-) -- Smial 08:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Ps: In other words: And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? ;-)
Matthaeus 7:3, wenn schon, denn schon.. ;-) --Hubertl 09:54, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
@Smial Once again: where do you see double standards by me? This picture I nominated IS sharp enough! Where did you see me ever nominate or promote pictures below QI standard? Is it not rather your best friend Ralf Roletschek who usually does this? Why then, if you are such a big fan of high-quality standards, do you tolerate it - only because he is your friend, yeah? Let me guess... Double standards? And could you please stop lying? Otherwise, we also may continue discussing on COM:ANU, if you prefer... --A.Savin 11:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
...except for your Moscow metro series? :) This image is sharp enough for an OOC jpeg from a camera with Bayer sensor (which is not sharp enough for my PERSONAL taste) --Shansov.net 13:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
You must have confused me with s/o else, I have no "Moscow Metro series" and did just a very few photos in Moscow Metro. --A.Savin 13:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done 16:9 --A.Savin 13:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as Smial and F. Riedelio. And of course our utmost best friend Ralf Roletschek. If you cannot accept critical, but well-meaning reviews, this is maybe not the right project for you, A.Savin. --Hubertl 13:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Do you also have your own opinion, or is it just because Smial said so? --A.Savin 13:26, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Stop arguing, you can do it on your discussion page. This is not the place for your private conflicts. --Hubertl 13:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
That's surely not your business. --A.Savin 13:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 13:46, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Распоред (ден 8-ми по номинацијата)[edit]

金 05 2月 → саб 13 фев
土 06 2月 → 日 14 2月
日 07 2月 → 月 15 2月
月 08 2月 → 火 16 2月
火 09 2月 → 水 17 2月
水 10 2月 → 木 18 2月
木 11 2月 → 金 19 2月
金 12 2月 → 土 20 2月
саб 13 фев → 日 21 2月