Commons:Candidatas a imágenes de calidad

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 75% 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.

Saltar a nominaciones
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Canadian English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎中文
float

Éstas son las candidatas a convertirse en Imagen de Calidad. Por favor, que quede claro que no es lo mismo que Imágenes destacadas. Adicionalmente, en caso de que desees información sobre tus imágenes, puedes conseguirla en Críticas fotográficas.

Objetivo

El objetivo de las imágenes de calidad es alentar a la gente que son la base de Commons, los usuarios individuales que proporcionan las imágenes para expandir esta colección. Mientras que las imágenes destacadas identifican a las mejores de todas las imágenes subidas a Commons, las Imágenes de Calidad sirven para identificar y alentar los esfuerzos de los usuarios para subir imágenes de calidad a Commons.
Además, las imágenes de calidad podrían ser un lugar donde otros usuarios expliquen métodos para mejorar una imagen.

Directrices

Todas las imágenes nominadas deben ser el resultado del trabajo de los usuarios de Commons.

Para los nominadores

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images; more detailed criteria are available at Image guidelines.

Requisitos de las imágenes
  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.


Creator

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.

Requisitos técnicos

Criterios más detallados están disponibles en Directrices de imágenes.

Resolución

Las imágenes de Commons no sólo se pueden usar para verlas en la pantalla. También pueden usarse para la impresión y o para su visualización en monitores de alta resolución. No podemos predecir qué dispositivos se usarán en el futuro, por lo que es importante que las imágenes que sean nominadas tengan una resolución razonablemente alta. Normalmente el límite inferior son 2 megapíxeles, pero para imágenes 'fáciles de tomar', los revisores pueden exigir mucho más.

(No aplicable a las imágenes SVG)

Calidad de las Imágenes

Las imágenes digitales pueden sufrir diversos problemas originados en la captura y procesamiento de la imagen como ruido, problemas con la compresión JPEG, falta de información, zonas de sombra o de relieve, o problemas con la captura de colores. Todos estos temas deben ser manejados correctamente.

Composición e iluminación

El arreglo del sujeto principal de una imagen debe contribuir a la propia imagen. Los objetos de fondo no deben distraer. La iluminación y el foco también han de contribuir al resultado global; el sujeto ha de destacar, ser completo y estar bien expuesto.

Valor

Nuestro objetivo principal es favorecer la calidad de las imágenes que contribuyen a Wikicommons, algo valioso para los proyectos de Wikimedia.

Cómo nominar

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

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]]) --~~~~ |}}

Nota: Hay un artilugio que acelera las nominaciones. 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

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


Evaluación de las imágenes

Cualquier usuario registrado puede revisar una nominación.
Cuando un revisor evalúa una imagen debe considerar las mismas directrices que el nominador.

Cómo revisar

How to update the status

Examina cuidadosamente la imagen. Ábrela en la máxima resolución, y mira si se cumplen los criterios de calidad.

  • Si decides promover la nominación, cambia la línea relevante de
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

Image:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion| muy breve descripción --Firma del nominador | Por qué te gusta. --~~~~}}

En otras palabras, cambia la plantilla de /Nomination a /Promotion y añade tu firma, a ser posible con algún pequeño comentario.

  • Si decides declinar la nominación, cambia la línea relevante de
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

Image:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline| muy breve descripción --Firma del nominador | Por qué no te gusta. --~~~~}}

En otras palabras, cambia la plantilla de /Nomination a /Decline y añade tu firma, a ser posible declarando los criterios por los que la imagen falló (puedes usar títulos de la sección de las directrices). Si hay muchos problemas, por favor notifica sólo los 2 o 3 más severos, y añade multiple problems. Cuando declines una nominación, por favor explica las razones en la página de discusión del nominador - como regla general, debes ser agradable y alentador! En el mensaje deberías dar una explicación más detallada de tu decisión.

Nota: Por favor, evalúa primero las imágenes más antiguas.


Período de gracia y promoción

Si no hay objeciones en un período de 2 días (exactamente: 48 horas) desde su revisión, la imagen se promueve o no, de acuerdo con la revisión que recibió. Si tienes objeciones, mueve la imagen al estado Consensual review.

Cómo ejecutar una decisión

QICbot actúa automáticamente estos 2 días después de que la decisión se ha tomado, y las imágenes promovidas son guardadas en Promovidas recientemente a la espera de la inserción manual en una apropiada página de Imágenes de Calidad.

Si crees que has encontrado una imagen excepcional que merece el estatus de Imagen destacada, entonces nomínala también en Commons:Featured picture candidates

  • Las imágenes que esperan una revisión, se muestran en un recuadro azul.
  • Las imágenes que el revisor ha aceptado se muestran en un recuadro verde.
  • Las imágenes que el revisor ha aceptado se muestran en un recuadro rojo.

Imágenes no asignadas (recuadro azul)

Las imágenes nominadas que no han sido promovidas ni declinadas, o acabaron en consenso (hubo igual número de oposiciones y apoyos) tras 8 días en esta página deberían ser borradas de esta página sin promoción, archivadas en Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives julio 2016 y añadirle a la imagen la Category:Unassessed QI candidates.

Proceso de revisión de consenso

La revisión de consenso es un lugar utilizado en el caso en que el procedimiento descrito anteriormente sea insuficiente y necesite discusión para que surjan más opiniones.

Cómo preguntar por la revisión de consenso

Si esto parece demasiado complicado, sólo cambia /Promotion, /Decline a /Discuss y añade tus comentarios inmediatamente tras la revisión. Alguien la moverá a la sección de revisión de consenso. O sólo intentalo, acertarás si sigues cuidadosamente lo que todo el mundo hace.

Por favor, sólo envía cosas a la revisión de consenso que hayan sido revisadas como promovidas / declinadas. Si, como revisor, no puedes tomar una decisión, añade tus comentarios, pero deja el candidato en esta página.

Revisión de las reglas de consenso

Ver Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Actualización de la página: 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]] 23:42, 29 julio 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.


July 29, 2016

July 28, 2016

July 27, 2016

July 26, 2016

July 25, 2016

July 24, 2016

July 23, 2016

July 22, 2016

July 21, 2016

July 20, 2016

July 18, 2016

July 17, 2016

July 15, 2016

July 13, 2016

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:Bos_gaurus_in_Mysore_zoo_(4).jpg

Bos gaurus in Mysore zoo (4).jpg

  • Nomination Bos gaurus in Mysore zoo --Rijinatwiki 14:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 14:07, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry. DoF too small, oversharpened. --XRay 15:32, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per XRay.--Peulle 20:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 20:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Bos_gaurus_in_Mysore_zoo_(1).jpg

Bos gaurus in Mysore zoo (1).jpg

  • Nomination Bos gaurus in Mysore zoo --Rijinatwiki 14:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality --Halavar 14:11, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMO oversharpened and too small DoF. --XRay 15:33, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Poor DoF; the animal body is out of focus.--Peulle 20:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 20:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Puppet theater in a former power station building. Schwerin, Germany.jpg

Puppet theater in a former power station building. Schwerin, Germany.jpg

  • Nomination Puppet theater in a former power station building. Schwerin, Germany--Ввласенко 07:01, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 07:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective distortion, poor categories --A.Savin 13:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 19:40, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Palm,_fingers.jpg

Palm, fingers.jpg

According to the file info, Josve05a asserts that he created the media... There is something not right here.--Peulle 20:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Jkadavoor 03:48, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

File:FarrierKnockbracken (2).JPG

FarrierKnockbracken (2).JPG

  • Nomination Farrier.Knockbracken , Co. Antrim, Ireland Notafly 13:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I know you don't have the tools for perspective adjustment yet, so I did that for you + a bit of light adjustment and crop. I chose the car as straight over the barn, impossible to do both. Someone else will have to do the review. W.carter 19:32, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well done, thank you! Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 03:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Smoodgy and compression artifacts. --Tobias "ToMar" Maier 10:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The guy's face is all smudged. Compression? Unsharp?--Peulle 20:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 20:28, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Montesquieu Pierre Bergoïoni.jpg

Montesquieu Pierre Bergoïoni.jpg

  • Nomination Funerary inscription for Pierre Bergoïoni (13th ctry.), Montesquieu-des-Albères, France. --Palauenc05 07:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but with such soft texture on the tablet, I'm afraid the camera's focus ended up on the bricks over it. Try using focus lock for such motifs. W.carter 13:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree, I think, it is enough for QI --Hubertl 14:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Really? A stationary medium-sized object like this should not be hard to get a good focus on, but I will welcome the opinions of others at CR. W.carter 14:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment New version uploaded. --Palauenc05 08:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment why overwriting the first version, which has already been promoted as valued image? Both versions are useful. The first has low contrast due to soft lighting, but the new now has that hard shadow. -- Smial 09:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @ Smial: Thanks for reviewing, actually, you are right. One shouldn't try to satisfy everybody. I also like the soft version better and don't find it too bad for QI. Hence, I go back to it and leave it as it is. --Palauenc05 11:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As said above, due to soft lighting the sharpness appears to be not very good, but as Hubertl: Good enough for QI. -- Smial 15:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Hubertl 19:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

File:16-07-20-Marktplatz-Eberswalde-RalfR-WP 20160720 17 30 37 Pro.jpg

16-07-20-Marktplatz-Eberswalde-RalfR-WP 20160720 17 30 37 Pro.jpg

  • Nomination Marktplatz Eberswalde--Ralf Roletschek 15:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 18:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. Unsharp (looks almost like digital zooming), "frozen" water (longer exposure may help). Poorly categorized (of course). --A.Savin 16:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Frozen water might be intentional, but the image has some CA and much oversharpening combined with loss of detail due to blurring noise reduction. See esp. structures on the black roof and the gables (Schmuckgiebel) of the building right. --Smial 09:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Hubertl 19:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Schlosspark Fulda (03).jpg

Schlosspark Fulda (03).jpg

  • Nomination Sculpture in the park by the castle in Fulda --Verum 10:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong WB. --Smial 12:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment it´s good practice, not immediately decline pictures with improveable faults. --Hubertl 19:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done (please reload page to see) I used the statue itself for WB, using the lightbulb behind it made it too blue as it is a warm afternoon (17:08) photo. W.carter 11:39, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Crop could be better but o.k.--Ermell (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Ermell. --Basotxerri 18:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I´m really sorry, but the top crop makes it a non-QI. --Hubertl 03:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 03:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Schlosspark Fulda (02).jpg

Schlosspark Fulda (02).jpg

  • Nomination Sculpture in the park by the castle in Fulda --Verum 10:16, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong WB --Smial 12:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment it´s good practice, not immediately decline pictures with improveable faults. --Hubertl 19:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done (please reload page to see) I used the statue itself for WB. W.carter 11:41, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK. --A.Savin 16:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There are clipping areas that have been artificially darkened so the histogram looks rather nice. But please look at the color hue, which is inconsistant everywhere at bright areas. This iamge (and the image above) can not be simply repaired using the JPG and general white balance settings. Perhaps it can be enhanced using raw format, if available. Of course it can be repaired by working on every single overexposed part separately. -- Smial 09:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. --Basotxerri 18:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 03:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 03:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Χώρα Σερίφου 9536.jpg

Χώρα Σερίφου 9536.jpg

  • Nomination View of Chora of Serifos. --C messier 08:28, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is some purple CA on buildings. And then there is noise all around. Kruusamägi 09:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done --C messier 10:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For me it still doesn't seem to be good enough. That purple halo on building edges really annoys me. Kruusamägi 10:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I had to zoom way more than 100% to find any CAs, and there was no purple CA on building edges. --C messier 10:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Will support if the black triangel (caused by perspective correction) down right is removed. The halos do not disturb in 100% view. If I zoom in to find them, I see a really horrible problem instead: the sharpness is NOT sufficiant to read the car plates!!!! -- Smial 13:13, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done --C messier 10:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 06:21, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Άσπρος Πύργος Σερίφου 9546.jpg

Άσπρος Πύργος Σερίφου 9546.jpg

  • Nomination Building material from white tower of Serifos. --C messier 17:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose To me, the blocks are a little bit too bright. --Dirtsc 15:41, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not according to the histogram. --C messier 18:18, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I didn't meant that the blocks are blown out, I would just suggest to darken them a bit. I think you can avoid the harsh contrast. --Dirtsc 13:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI agree with Dirtsc, but this is one argument we are never going to win as long as the histogram is right, better send it to CR and let others decide. W.carter 07:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
          • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment And further more, a photographer from the mediterranean (e.g. C messier) tends to have a different view about how colours and brightness should be than photographers living in a land with only a couple of hours of daylight during december (e.g. W.carter and me). ;-) --Dirtsc (talk) 07:08, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Mediterranean sun and clear sky will result in high contrasts also in the evening. To me the image looks quite natural. -- Smial 13:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me okay --A.Savin 18:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 06:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

File:16-03-30-Jerusalem_Mishkenot_Sha’ananim-RalfR-DSCF7635.jpg

16-03-30-Jerusalem Mishkenot Sha’ananim-RalfR-DSCF7635.jpg

  • Nomination Mishkenot Sha’ananim, Jerusalem --Ralf Roletschek 10:55, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion

Good quality. --Hubertl 11:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is a large dust spot in sky, correctable --Llez 15:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC) ✓ Done --Ralf Roletschek 17:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment there are some other dust spots too, see notes. --Hubertl 18:30, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok now --Hubertl 19:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine! --Palauenc05 14:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Hubertl 19:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

File:BasílicaLujan-jul2016.jpg

BasílicaLujan-jul2016.jpg

  • Nomination Front view of Nuestra Señora de Luján Basílica --Ezarate 22:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Stitching error left side, retouching leftover at the lamp right side, too magentaish, too dark. --Cccefalon 06:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done redone --Ezarate 13:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose CA. -- Smial 10:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Smial: Could you please add notes on the picture over the CAs, thanks!! --Ezarate 13:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment reworked Ezarate 00:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I'm not really convinced, but I'm also not really sure if the shortcomings are large enough to still reject the image. Someone else may decide. -- Smial 07:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 19:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Эхинокактус Грузона - Echinocactus grusonii.jpg

Эхинокактус Грузона - Echinocactus grusonii.jpg

  • Nomination Эхинокактус Грузона - Echinocactus grusonii--AlixSaz 16:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose File too small (min 2 Mb) and stones overexposed.--W.carter 16:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I see the overexposed stones, but the photo is nearly 3 Mpix (we count size Mpix not MB). --C messier 17:56, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Then plese lets see what a CR will bring. I dont see a significant overexposation. --Dirtsc 15:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quality is good in my opinion. --Dirtsc 07:51, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI for me. Jkadavoor 09:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If overexposure is the problem, surely that can be fixed in the edit? Waiting for a new version before voting. --Peulle 16:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ok for me --Uoaei1 20:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per others + image is overcategorized. --A.Savin 16:33, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK 4 me --Palauenc05 15:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Hubertl 19:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Tabla del tiempo (día 8 tras la nominación)

jue 21 jul → vie 29 jul
vie 22 jul → sáb 30 jul
sáb 23 jul → dom 31 jul
dom 24 jul → lun 01 ago
lun 25 jul → mar 02 ago
mar 26 jul → mié 03 ago
mié 27 jul → jue 04 ago
jue 28 jul → vie 05 ago
vie 29 jul → sáb 06 ago