Commons:良質な画像の推薦

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 43% 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Outdated translations are marked like this.
推薦一覧に移動
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Canadian English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎Bahasa Indonesia • ‎日本語 • ‎latviešu • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎中文
float

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。 Additionally, if you just want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at Commons:Photography critiques.

目的

「良質な画像」の目的は、コモンズの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。 While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users’ efforts in providing quality images to Commons.
Additionally, quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image.

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


作者

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

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

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


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

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


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。

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.


推薦数

推薦に際しては、あなたが最高と評価する画像を慎重に選んで下さい。一度に二枚を超える画像を加えた場合”多すぎ”と見なされ、他利用者から難色を示されたり、直ちに枚数を減らされたりすることがあります。


画像評価

評価資格は登録ユーザーであれば誰でもあります。
評価者は推薦者と同様にイメージ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

How to update the status

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、品質基準が満たされ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、下記の様に該当箇所を書き換えます。

File:画像名.jpg|{{/Nomination| 画像説明 --推薦者署名 |}}

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| 画像説明 --推薦者署名 |}}

File:画像名.jpg|{{/Decline| 画像説明 --推薦者署名 | 評価理由 --~~~~ }}

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

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first and, if possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.


評価猶予期間から決定まで

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


How to execute decision

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

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

  • Images awaiting review show the nomination outlined in blue.
  • Images the reviewer has accepted show the nomination outlined in green
  • Images the reviewer has rejected show the nomination outlined in red


評価を受けなかった画像(青枠のまま)

Nominated images which have not generated assessments either to promote nor to decline, or a consensus (equal opposition as support in consensual review) after 8 days on this page should be removed from this page without promotion, archived in Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 21 2017 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.


Consensual review process

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

How to ask for consensual review

To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day.

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


Consensual review rules

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache


Contents

Nominations

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]] 09:18, 21 9月 2017 (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.
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Canadian English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎Bahasa Indonesia • ‎日本語 • ‎latviešu • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎中文

September 21, 2017

September 20, 2017

September 19, 2017

September 18, 2017

September 17, 2017

September 16, 2017

September 15, 2017

September 14, 2017

September 13, 2017

September 12, 2017

September 11, 2017

September 10, 2017

September 09, 2017

September 07, 2017

September 05, 2017

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 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

File:Vesuvius_seen_from_Naples.jpg

Vesuvius seen from Naples.jpg

  • Nomination Vesuvius seen from Naples --Livioandronico2013 20:10, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. --Moroder 20:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    No offence meant, - but I'd like to read more ratings to the sharpness of this image. --PtrQs 00:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Life_around_jungle.jpg

Life around jungle.jpg

  • Nomination Lawachara National Park, Kamalganj, Maulvi Bazar. By User:Pallabkabir --Masum-al-hasan 10:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. Nominate it for FP also ! --PetarM 10:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSorry, Nice moment and composition, but the image itself is very unsharp. --Shishir 14:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Shishir.--Peulle 17:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Shishir. -- Ikan Kekek 07:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Rue Gonzague Florens in Conques 04.jpg

Rue Gonzague Florens in Conques 04.jpg

  • Nomination Rue Gonzague Florens in Conques, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 13:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentPlease, clean noise from sky. Also, there aer some dark dust spots on sky. --Nino Verde 05:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)  Not done in a week. PumpkinSky 01:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Good enough for QI. --Palauenc05 21:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Mont_de_Sëura_Chedul_Pizes_de_Cir_Pizes_Cuecenes_Sela_Gherdëina.jpg

Mont de Sëura Chedul Pizes de Cir Pizes Cuecenes Sela Gherdëina.jpg

  • Nomination The Puez-Geisler Nature Park in Val Gardena in the Dolomites - South Tyrol --Moroder 06:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentThe focus seems to be too far in the foreground. The mountains in the middle are not as sharp as they should be.--Ermell 12:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for the comment, what do you want me to do?--Moroder 14:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Maybe you could try sharpen it a bit. The motive is gorgeous.--Ermell 16:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I tried sharpening it but didn't like it. IMO it's sharp enough. If you like you could decline it and I'll move it to CR? I don't want to resize it either. Cheers --Moroder 16:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too unsharp IMO.Sorry. --Ermell 20:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I disagree --Moroder 04:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Maybe the lens is just not good enough for such a high-resolution camera? Or maybe image is affected by diffraction because of small aperture used on such small pixels? Photo is nice and looks good on small previews, but blurry on full size view. --Shansov.net 22:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's a 2000 Euro Nikon lens 24/70/2,8. The aperture is optimal f/11 --Moroder 09:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --XRay 08:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Maybach G 650 Landaulet Ersatzrad IMG 0755.jpg

Mercedes-Maybach G 650 Landaulet Ersatzrad IMG 0755.jpg

  • Nomination Wheel of the Mercedes-Maybach G 650 Landaulet at IAA 2017 --Alexander-93 14:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition, perhaps a bit over sharpened but QI for me -- Spurzem 19:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not for me; the centre is out of focus.--Peulle 20:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Main subject is not in focus. --Shansov.net 19:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp, strong CAs on the black rubber --PtrQs 20:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp/Main subject not in focus. --Sandro Halank 22:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Sandro Halank 22:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Bugatti Chiron 0-400-0 tire IMG 0726.jpg

Bugatti Chiron 0-400-0 tire IMG 0726.jpg

  • Nomination Wheel of the Bugatti Chiron at IAA 2017 --Alexander-93 14:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough, I'm afraid. --Peulle 15:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Impressive image of this wheel and sharp enough for QI. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 19:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Image is not sharp, may be not in focus. --Shansov.net 19:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp, strong (sorry, mixed it up with the Maybach wheel) CAs on the black rubber --PtrQs 20:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp. --Sandro Halank 22:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Sandro Halank 22:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

File:17-09-07-Wikidaheim-Graz_RR70618.jpg

17-09-07-Wikidaheim-Graz RR70618.jpg

  • Nomination Billa in Graz --Ralf Roletschek 12:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but the pole in the very middle destroys any composition and the darkening of the sky is too abvious and brutally executed. --PtrQs 18:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment So I'm the only one who thinks the top of the building being dimmed by the sloppy dimming of the sky and who feels that the top of the pole is conspicuously darker than the rest of it? And ain't that what makes the technical 'Quality'? --PtrQs 20:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't agree. Composition shows a supermarket in a modern environment so IMO the pole does not destroy anything. Sky is also well done --Michielverbeek 20:54, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Perfectly acceptable to me, too. And what's wrong with portraying the sky as it was? This isn't FPC, where the type of weather is judged for "wow" or the lack thereof; this is QIC, where we simply judge the quality of the photograph. In the context of QIC, any weather is just as good as any other, if the picture is well taken. -- Ikan Kekek 21:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Slight perspective correction may be needed for the right part of image --Shansov.net 05:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit noisy but still o.k.--Ermell 07:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 15:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 15:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

File:WAP7 Rayalseema express 03092017.jpg

WAP7 Rayalseema express 03092017.jpg

  • Nomination Rayalseema express being hauled by WAP7 near Lingampally--Nikhil B 02:23, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. IMO DoF too small, focus problems. --XRay 04:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    @XRay can you please tell me where was the focus missing? IMHO, entire train is in focus. Thanks for the review. --Nikhil B 05:31, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO the whole train is out of focus. The front isn't sharp auf with f/5.6 the DoF is too small. I've seen the problems with a lot of photographs. May be there is a problem with your lens. But if you think th photograph is OK, please feel free to set it to "discuss". --XRay 10:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC). Ok thanks --Nikhil B 02:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per XRay. Also seems tilted down to the right. -- Ikan Kekek 20:12, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I wonder why railroad-related pictures taken by that user look somewhat too smartphony for a real DSLR... Are they cropped too tightly or that problem is caused by a kit lens? It really doesn't look like ISO 200 to me... --Shansov.net 02:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
@Shansov.net I don't use bigger lens for taking railroad pictures because they are too noisy and unsharp. I use smaller lens (18-55mm standard kit lens) for rail photography, which means most of my rail photos are cropped heavily. Thanks --Nikhil B 08:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good for me. I can not see that anything tilts down to the right. -- Spurzem 15:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --PumpkinSky 01:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC))

File:Tachina fly 7954.jpg

Tachina fly 7954.jpg

  • Nomination Tachinidae --Vengolis 02:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 02:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not shar enough for a QI, especially near the head. Also the background seems very much distracting in my opinion. Deepugn 09:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support looks fine to me.--Nikhil B 04:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Deepugn. Good photo, but not quite a QI, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 20:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, main object is over all not sharp enough and the background is quite noisy. --MB-one 21:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok for me Bijay chaurasia 08:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Ikan Kekek 20:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

File:13-09-29-Sand_im_Meer-N3S_9180.jpg

13-09-29-Sand im Meer-N3S 9180.jpg

  • Nomination Kormoran-Insel --Ralf Roletschek 21:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. --Kong of Lasers 23:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 22:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Blurred or out of focus. --Nino Verde 09:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nothing sharp, IMO.--Jebulon 09:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good for me. This time it seems as we had a decline wave. -- Spurzem 10:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support seems good to me -- Bijay chaurasia 08:20, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

File:2017-08-26-Windraeder_Fehmarn-4301.jpg

2017-08-26-Windraeder Fehmarn-4301.jpg

  • Nomination Wind turbines on the island of Fehmarn, Germany --Superbass 21:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is a bit blurry. --Kong of Lasers 23:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It is good from my point of view. --Nino Verde 05:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. The unsharp brushwood in the foreground spoils it. --Milseburg 21:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

I tend to Symbol support vote.svg Support. There's room for atmospheric pics at QIC, isn't there? -- Ikan Kekek 23:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Milseburg.--Peulle 06:51, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jebulon 01:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Great atmospheric picture (except the plants in the foreground), maybe even FP level for me (except the plants in the foreground) --Shansov.net 02:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Other way around Shansov.net --Mile (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good to me. --Sandro Halank 22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Sandro Halank 22:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

水 13 9月 → 木 21 9月
木 14 9月 → 金 22 9月
金 15 9月 → 土 23 9月
土 16 9月 → 日 24 9月
日 17 9月 → 月 25 9月
月 18 9月 → 火 26 9月
火 19 9月 → 水 27 9月
水 20 9月 → 木 28 9月
木 21 9月 → 金 29 9月