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 41% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Quality images candidates and have to be approved by a translation administrator.

Outdated translations are marked like this.
Shortcut
COM:QIC
Przejdź do nominacji
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

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

Poniżej znajdują się ogólne wytyczne dotyczące jakości zdjęcia, bardziej szczegółowe kryteria dostępny w linku Image guidelines (en).


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.


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 February 25 2018 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]] 18:29, 25 luty 2018 (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 25, 2018

February 24, 2018

February 23, 2018

February 22, 2018

February 21, 2018

February 20, 2018

February 19, 2018

February 18, 2018

February 17, 2018

February 16, 2018

February 15, 2018

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:2017-09-08 (159) Fulda EcoControl 195-65 R 15 91 T tire at Park and Ride am Bahnhof Purgstall an der Erlauf.jpg

2017-09-08 (159) Fulda EcoControl 195-65 R 15 91 T tire at Park and Ride am Bahnhof Purgstall an der Erlauf.jpg

  • Nomination Fulda EcoControl 195-65 R 15 91 T tire at Park and Ride am Bahnhof Purgstall an der Erlauf. --GT1976 22:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 05:05, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree Abba ehrligg, dadd grenzt für mi an Perversion. Ok, Augenhöhe, ok sachlich, aber vom Shift spricht hier niemand?? Ich kann vom Reifen nur ULDA lesen., tss --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 19:34, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Looks like good quality to me, too. And Hans, even after running your words thought Google Translate, I have no idea what you are trying to say. -- Ikan Kekek 08:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Sandro Halank 11:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sandro Halank 11:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Arcades. Bologna. Italy.jpg

Arcades. Bologna. Italy.jpg

  • Nomination Arcades. Bologna. Italy --Ввласенко 09:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit noisy, but a beautiful picture and QI for me -- Spurzem 12:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The composition is fine, but I think it's too noisy for QI. Let's have some more opinions.--Peulle 13:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I must agree with Spurzem. Too much noise unfortunately. --Halavar 13:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
      • I didn't say: „Too much noise“! -- Spurzem 14:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment My mistake, sorry. I thought about Peulle, not you. --Halavar 16:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - The noise is hardly visible to me at 300% of full screen size; it's only when I look at the photo at full size that I really see the noise, and even then, it's not severe, though Ввласенко might want to resolve this disagreement by correcting it. -- Ikan Kekek 18:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done -- Ikan Kekek, thank you for your advice. There is always a struggle between noise and sharpness, I hope that now the image is not worse. -- Ввласенко 22:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Looks better to me. -- Ikan Kekek 01:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lack of detail, unsharp, artifacts of noise reduction. As Ввласенко says, it's a struggle between noise and sharpness. I like the grainy version better but IMO neither of them is good enough for a QI. --Basotxerri 14:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Only a comment...Not my style and my biggest matter is to understand

the reviewers. Technical noise reduction is not wealthy (and limit for this sensor is 16000 ASA/ISO) and now the question marks:

a) What´s the sense shwowing peoble to sepeerate a snap from an image in architecture? It´s the rear side of an old men, and it´s not composite, see next T-Shirt behind....

b) I do not like grain, but if someone will this convert it to b&w , we can see it´s not graphic enough

Conclusion: It´s warm, it´s a base for refuge. I miss a body with face or an idea for the picmakers idea. Still think, it´s just a random snap.

  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support for the denoised version, full support for the first. --Smial 12:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)~
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

File:GKB_Kaiserwald_01.jpg

GKB Kaiserwald 01.jpg

  • Nomination Railroad track in Styria --Clemens Stockner 11:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --GT1976 13:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but I disagree: the image is tilted or needs a perspective correction, check the verticals of the buildings. --Basotxerri 16:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Basotxerri---Peulle 07:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Basotxerri. --Sandro Halank 11:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Sandro Halank 11:16, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Alt_Duvenstedt_Mühle_001.jpg

Alt Duvenstedt Mühle 001.jpg

  • Nomination Mühle in Alt Duvenstedt im Kreis Rendsburg-Eckernförde in Schleswig-Holstein --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 12:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 15:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too blue! --RaboKarbakian 15:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It´s not blueish and not to warm. If some one wanna critize, then it´s to bright. Pls Check the time stamp, 15 Minutes later it´s real dark, because night dew at a winter day.(Frozen Times) I see no sense to drift every image to a sunny High-Noon Level. Looks like the audience wanna see more tombs and toilet rooms from my side, I added one todayː-D With the hard job to take a pic from ugly but sensefull places with open apperture. Daily Pic is warmed up, over 2200K, no reality but North Side--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 06:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC).
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per photographer's explanation. -- Ikan Kekek 06:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dark. Underexposed foreground, per Commons:Image_guidelines#Quality_and_featured_photographic_images. The light is just not good. The fact that this was nearly night is not a valid reason to accept dark pictures here. The result is more important than the originality, and if we have no underexposed images among our QIs, the reason is not because the users never attempt to shoot in the evening, but rather because such shots too black are not successful, sorry -- Basile Morin 04:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I too think that it hasn't quite succeeded, especially when looking at the borders between the mill tower and the sky.--Peulle 07:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I do agree with the author of this picture, it is not too blue --PJDespa (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Basile Morin 04:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


Harmonogram (dzień 8 po nominacji)

So 17 lut → N 25 lut
N 18 lut → Pn 26 lut
Pn 19 lut → Wt 27 lut
Wt 20 lut → Śr 28 lut
Śr 21 lut → Cz 01 mar
Cz 22 lut → Pt 02 mar
Pt 23 lut → So 03 mar
So 24 lut → N 04 mar
N 25 lut → Pn 05 mar