Commons:Kandydatury do grafik wysokiej jakości

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.

Przejdź do nominacji
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Canadian English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎latviešu • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎中文
float

Na tej stronie znajdują się kandydatury do grafik wysokiej jakości. Proszę nie mylić grafik wysokiej jakości z grafikami na medal. Additionally, if you just want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at Commons:Photography critiques.

Cel

The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. 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.

Wytyczne

Wszystkie nominowane zdjęcia muszą być stworzone przez jednego z użytkowników Wikimedia Commons.

Dla nominujących

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


Wymagania co do strony
  1. Prawa autorskie. Grafika wysokiej jakości musi być przesłana do Commons pod właściwą licencją. Pełne wymagania co do licencji dostępne są na stronie oznaczenia licencji.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Grafika wysokiej jakości powinna mieć wyrazistą nazwę, być odpowiednio skategoryzowana oraz mieć na stronie pliku opis w jednym lub więcej językach. Mile widziany, ale nie obowiązkowy, jest opis w języku angielskim.
  4. Grafika nie może zawierać reklam ani podpisów autora. Informacja o prawach autorskich i twórcy zawiera się na stronie opisu grafiki. Może także znaleźć się w metadanych pliku. Nie powinna jednak zawierać się w treści grafiki.


Twórca

Zdjęcia muszą być utworzone przez jednego z użytkowników Wikimedia Commons. Oznacza, to że zdjęcia z serwisów takich jak Flickr nie będą mogły uzyskać statusu grafiki wysokiej jakości (w przypadku grafik na medal nie ma takiego ograniczenia). 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.

Wymagania techniczne

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.


Rozdzielczość

Obrazy rastrowe (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) muszą mieć rozdzielczość przynajmniej 2 Mpx. Oceniający mogą zwrócić się do autora o plik w większej rozdzielczości, jeśli obiekt na zdjęciu może być względnie łatwo sfotografowany ponownie. Wymóg ten wynika z tego, że grafiki z Commons mogą być drukowane, oglądanie na monitorach o wysokiej rozdzielczości lub wykorzystywane w inny sposób.

Zasada nie jest stosowana dla grafiki wektorowej (SVG).


Wysoka jakość

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.


Kompozycja i oświetlenie

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.


Wartość

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.


Jak nominować

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

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Bardzo krótki opis  --~~~~ |}}

Opis powinien być nie dłuższy niż kilka słów. Prosimy pozostawić pustą linię pomiędzy twoją a poprzednią nominacją.

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

Informacja: istnieje gadżet, QInominator, ułatwiający nominowanie grafik. 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.


Liczba nominacji

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


Ocenianie grafik

Każdy zarejestrowany użytkownik może recenzować grafiki
When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.


Jak oceniać?

Jak zaktualizować status

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you liked it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

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.


Grace period and promotion

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.


Jak wykonać decyzję

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


Nieocenione zdjęcia (nominacja zakreślona na niebiesko)

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 wrzesień 2016 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.


Zasady dyskusji

Zobacz Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Rules

Odśwież stronę: purge this page's cache


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]] 23:00, 27 wrzesień 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.


September 27, 2016

September 26, 2016

September 25, 2016

September 24, 2016

September 23, 2016

September 22, 2016

September 21, 2016

September 20, 2016

September 19, 2016

September 18, 2016

September 17, 2016

September 16, 2016

September 14, 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:High-speed train at platform in Milano Stazione Centrale.jpg

High-speed train at platform in Milano Stazione Centrale.jpg

  • Nomination ETR 500 Italian high-speed train at Milano Centrale --Daniel Case 17:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Visible CA at the ceiling of the train station. Try to reduce highlights as well. --ElBute 16:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Just to let you know I am working on this. Daniel Case 02:33, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done OK, this is what I could do. Daniel Case 22:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm afraid the overexposition at the end of the station is not recoverable. However, this is unavoidable and not the object of interest in the photo. In any case, the CA at the ceiling are still very noticeable. It's easy to fix that. --ElBute 10:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
yeah, efforts to fix the other end usually made the CA worse, so I had to strike a balance; if we just focus on that maybe it will work. Daniel Case 16:26, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I did it for you. If you don't agree, please revert. Good quality now. --ElBute 08:17, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice work but not QI for me.--Ermell 07:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Weak support; not perfect but good enough for QI, methinks. Seen worse been promoted before.--Peulle 22:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 22:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Monument_to_Empress_Elisabeth,_Volksgarten_Vienna,_September_2016.jpg

Monument to Empress Elisabeth, Volksgarten Vienna, September 2016.jpg

  • Nomination Monument to Empress Elisabeth of Austria (Sisi), in the Volksgarten close to the Hofburg imperial palace in Vienna. --Martin Falbisoner 12:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment please reprocess it if possible, its badly overexposed. --Hubertl 20:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • {{o}}, I´m sorry, but obviously, this scenery is, because of the Burghtheater in the background, not captureable at this daytime without using HDR. I send it to CR for additional opinions. --Hubertl 14:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment fair enough! I'll give it another try - I've redone the picture and the current version is imo much better than my first update. Please have another look, @Hubertl et al. Thanks --Martin Falbisoner 15:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Changed to Symbol support vote.svg Support with the last result. BTW, it´s a great motif, this Volksgarten, Martin. I spent days there, because it´s just a short distance from were I live. And I learned a lot, how to manage those kind of motifs. --Hubertl 06:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Much improved from the first version and quite good. -- Ikan Kekek 09:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 06:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Lüdinghausen,_Jüdischer_Friedhof_--_2016_--_3655.jpg

Lüdinghausen, Jüdischer Friedhof -- 2016 -- 3655.jpg

  • Nomination Jewish Cemetery in Lüdinghausen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good focus to main object, but sky is overexposed and spoil the photo. --Michielverbeek 06:21, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Fixed I'd tried to fix this. Would you please so kind and check the image again? Thank you. --XRay 05:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Indeed, it is looking much better and I don't see any reason for declining --Michielverbeek 05:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 08:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:29._Ulica_-_Krakowski_Teatr_Tańca_-_Estra_&_Andro_-_20160708_2649.jpg

29. Ulica - Krakowski Teatr Tańca - Estra & Andro - 20160708 2649.jpg

  • Nomination Cracow Dance Theatre in the show "Estra & Andro" at 29. ULICA – The International Festival of Street Theatres in Kraków --Jakubhal 21:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice action shot sharp and all, but all the cut things on the right side as opposed to the extra space on the left really spoil the picture. I doubt very much that this is salvageble since any cropping would cut off other things. Pity. --W.carter 08:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree, don't see any problem with the composition --Moroder 18:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose After thinking about it for a while, I'm coming down on the side of W.carter with a weak oppose vote. The shot is difficult given the movement, but the dancer on the right is cut tightly as well as being out of focus. It's a shame given the quality of the rest of it, so I can only echo the first reviewer: pity.--Peulle 08:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Face of the main person in the center of the image out of focus. Sorry, I like the composition very much, colors and lighting are good and the action is really great captured. But the point of sharpness is somewhat random. Pity. --Smial 09:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Ps: Such scenes sometimes demand surprisingly high ISO settings to get short exposure times.
  • Mild Symbol support vote.svg Support - You folks are really tough customers on this one! Looking at this not at full size but a full-page size on my monitor, it's a very good composition that really captures the action and sense of motion well. I, too, wish the blonde dancer weren't cropped at the right, but I think this picture captures the essence of the dance quite well enough to merit being featured. -- Ikan Kekek 08:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, you are the one who started the "Are QIC standards high enough?" thread on the QIC talk page... ;-) I think that the same comments that are made here, would pop up again if it was ever nominated as an FPC. cart-Talk 08:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Yes, I did, but I seem to have discovered that the answer is that the standards on quality are lower here. I would not vote to feature this picture. -- Ikan Kekek 08:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Villa_Carlotta_3469.jpg

Villa Carlotta 3469.jpg

  • Nomination Villa Carlotta --Hamster28 07:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The sky is overexposed, is there a way to get back the detail reducing the highlights? Poco a poco 20:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Acceptable, Light but not burned out. Overall high enough quality imo.--ArildV 17:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If the both of you can not decide: discuss--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 16:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I was about to say the same; let's go to CR. @Hamster28:, please have a look at the review and see if you wish to make any changes to the image.--Peulle 17:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Hubertl 19:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Dahlia 'Happy Days' in Jardin des Plantes de Toulouse 03.jpg

Dahlia 'Happy Days' in Jardin des Plantes de Toulouse 03.jpg

  • Nomination Dahlia 'Happy Days' in Jardin des Plantes de Toulouse. By --Tournasol7 21:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality -- Spurzem 22:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, I disagree, nothing is sharp --A.Savin 11:27, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per A.Savin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree; the DoF is not deep enough so there is very few things sharp in this shot.--Peulle 09:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Hubertl 06:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)


Harmonogram (dzień 8 po nominacji)

Pn 19 wrz → Wt 27 wrz
Wt 20 wrz → Śr 28 wrz
Śr 21 wrz → Cz 29 wrz
Cz 22 wrz → Pt 30 wrz
Pt 23 wrz → So 01 paź
So 24 wrz → N 02 paź
N 25 wrz → Pn 03 paź
Pn 26 wrz → Wt 04 paź
Wt 27 wrz → Śr 05 paź