Commons:Návrhy na kvalitní obrázky

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 37% 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Outdated translations are marked like this.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
Přeskočit k návrhům
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

Zde najdete obrázky navržené na zařazení mezi Kvalitní obrázky. Prosím povšimněte si, že jde o něco jiného než Nejlepší obrázky. Pokud chcete ke svým fotografiím nějaké obsáhlejší komentáře a kritiku, je vhodnějším místem stránka Photography critiques.

Contents

Cíl

Cílem projektu kvalitní obrázky je podpořit ty, kteří jsou skutečným základem Wikimedia Commons - jednotlivé uživatele, kteří přispívají k rozšíření Commons svými jedinečnými příspěvky. Zatímco Nejlepší obrázky shromažďují to absolutně nejlepší a nejpůsobivější z veškerého obsahu Commons, cílem Kvalitních obrázků je podpořit uživatele v tvorbě obrázků s definovanou úrovní kvality, a identifikovat obrázky ji splňující.
Kvalitní obrázky nejsou soutěž.

Pravidla

Všechny navržené obrázky musí být vytvořené přímo uživateli Commons.

Pro navrhovatele

Níže popsaná jsou přibližná kritéria pro Kvalitní obrázky, podrobný popis je v Quality images guidelines (zatím v angličtině).


Požadavky na stránku s popisem
  1. Autorská práva. Kvalitní obrázky musí být na Commons nahrané přímo držitelem autorským práv s přijatelnou licencí.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.

Kvalitní obrázky musí být zařazené v odpovídajících kategoriích, mít výstižný název a popis. V případě rostlin a zvířat by měl popis obsahovat systematické jméno.

  1. Kvalitní obrázky nesmí obsahovat reklamu či podpis autora v samotném obrázku. Informace o autorovi a autorských právech by se měly nacházet na stránce s popisem, a mohou být v metadatech souboru (EXIF a pod. ), ale neměly by narušovat vlastní obrázek.


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.

Technické požadavky

Přesnější specifikace je v textu Commons:Quality images guidelines.


Resolution

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.


Image quality

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.


Composition and lighting

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.


Value

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


How to nominate

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

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

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


Hodnocení obrázků

Kterýkoli přihlášený uživatel může vyhodnotit nominace.
Při hodnocení se užijí stejná kritéria jako při nominace,


Jak provést hodnocení

How to update the status

Důkladně si prohlédněte obrázek. Otevřete si jej v plném rozlišení a zkontrolujte, jestli splňuje jednotlivá kritéria pro kvalitní obrázky

  • Pokud rozhodnete že obrázek kritéria splňuje, upravte příslušný řádek ze tvaru

Image: ImageNameHere. jpg|{{/Nomination| velmi krátký popis --~~~~ |}}

Image: ImageNameHere. jpg|{{/Promotion| velmi krátký popis --Podpis navrhovatele | Čím je obrázek obzvlášť dobrý. --~~~~}}

Jinak řečeno, šablonu změňte z /Nomination na /Promotion a přidejte popis, případně velmi krátké zdůvodnění.

  • Pokud rozhodnete že obrázek kritéria nesplňuje, upravte příslušný řádek ze tvaru

Image: ImageNameHere. jpg|{{/Nomination| velmi krátký popis --~~~~ |}}

Image: ImageNameHere. jpg|{{/Decline| velmi krátký popis --Podpis navrhovatele | velmi krátké zdůvodnění --~~~~}}

Jinak řečeno, šablonu změňte z /Nomination na /Decline přidejte podpis, případně kritéria na kvalitní obrázky, která navržený obrázek nesplňuje. (Používejte názvy sekcí z kritérií). Pokud obrázek nesplňuje větší množství požadavků, stačí uvést 2-3 nejvážnější chyby, zmínit "multiple problems". Když zamítáte nominaci, je přínosné na stránce navrhovatele vysvětlit důvody - ale vždy přívětivě, žádné kousavé poznámky.

Prosba: Hodnoťte nejdřív nejstarší nezhodnocené obrázky.


Zhodnocení a

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


Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

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 May 23 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.


Consensual review rules

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: 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]] 15:39, 23 květen 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.

May 23, 2018

May 22, 2018

May 21, 2018

May 20, 2018

May 19, 2018

May 18, 2018

May 17, 2018

May 16, 2018

May 15, 2018

May 14, 2018

May 13, 2018

May 12, 2018

May 11, 2018

May 09, 2018

May 07, 2018

May 05, 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:_Осколки_льда.jpg

Осколки льда.jpg

  • Nomination Lake Baikal in winter (by Discoverynn) --SKas 09:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good quality. --Peulle 09:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose It´s amazing, but let´s talk again about downsampling. --Milseburg 19:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
    @Milseburg: Downsampling? What did you mean? The resolution exceeds the minimum requirements. Not any reasons for discussion. I would like to see a photo in higher resolution too. But also such resolution is enough for QI. --SKas 07:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Holding off my vote until Milseburg's concern has been addressed. @SKas: Please look at the Resolution/Downsampling section of the Guidelines: "Images should not be downsampled (sized down) in order to appear of better quality." This is a nature photograph, so there had better be a very good reason for the reduction in size. This rule is in place to avoid users downsampling their photograph to just above the absolute limit of 2 Mpx. --Peulle 11:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 07:13, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

File:IMG_Copper_Headed_Trinket_Snake.jpg

IMG Copper Headed Trinket Snake.jpg

  • Nomination Coelognathus radiatus in threat display. By User:Lurey Rohit --Biplab Anand 05:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Insufficient quality. Sorry. IMO DoF too small and JPEG artifacts. --XRay 05:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good quality. --Frank Schulenburg 05:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Sorry, forgotten: And I'm wondering about the EXIF data. Is the image really taken with a Canon EOS 6D? IMO the model name should be written with a capital "D". It looks the model name was added with a tool like exiftool. And please upload a not downscaled version of the photograph. --XRay 05:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment - Out of respect for XRay's questions, I will hold off from voting and wait. But that said, isn't the size big enough for wildlife photography? The snake is pretty big in the picture. And I agree with Frank that it's good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 06:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I would withdraw my contra vote. DoF isn't a major issue. These are IMO all minor issues: JPEG artifacts, crop, EXIF data, a little bit too dark. But IMO too much issues. --XRay 08:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose per XRay.--Peulle 11:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 07:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

File:15-07-11-Flughafen-Paris-CDG-RalfR-N3S_8798.jpg

15-07-11-Flughafen-Paris-CDG-RalfR-N3S 8798.jpg

  • Nomination Pushback Traktor am Flughafen Paris Charles de Gaulle --Ralf Roletschek 12:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Disturbing reflections. --Ermell 06:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri 07:06, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

File:15-07-11-Flughafen-Paris-CDG-RalfR-N3S_8863.jpg

15-07-11-Flughafen-Paris-CDG-RalfR-N3S 8863.jpg

  • Nomination Beladung eines A 380 am Flughafen Paris Charles de Gaulle --Ralf Roletschek 12:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 15:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Disturbing reflections. Looks as if the picture is leaning to the left. --Ermell 06:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri 07:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

File:15-07-11-Flughafen-Paris-CDG-RalfR-N3S_8826.jpg

15-07-11-Flughafen-Paris-CDG-RalfR-N3S 8826.jpg

  • Nomination Airbus A320 EI-DSW von Alitalia FlughafenParis Charles de Gaulle --Ralf Roletschek 12:52, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose The dust spot should be removed as well as the reflections of the windows in the sky. --Ermell 06:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri 07:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Saint_Micheal_Church_of_Decazeville_05.jpg

Saint Micheal Church of Decazeville 05.jpg

  • Nomination Bell tower of the Saint Micheal Church of Decazeville, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 07:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose I disagree, too dark --Jacek Halicki 15:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose per Poco - for 12:59, the sky really does look too dark. -- Ikan Kekek 06:34, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 07:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Black_squirrel_carrying_a_walnut_in_its_mouth,_close_view.jpg

Black squirrel carrying a walnut in its mouth, close view.jpg

  • Nomination A melanistic Eastern gray squirrel, Sciurus carolinensis, carrying a nut in its mouth as it pauses while crossing a walkway in front of a house in Campbell, California. --Grendelkhan 21:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support That's quite a closeup! That's a walnut, wouldn't you say? I think it is and should be identified as such. But that's a minor point. -- Ikan Kekek 23:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Thanks! I've filed a rename request and identified the nut in the description. Grendelkhan 01:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Poor level of detail in the fur; let's settle it democratically and see what the community says.--Peulle 11:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 07:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

File:2018-05-06_Fünfmarkstückeiche,_Kierspe,_NRW_01.jpg

2018-05-06 Fünfmarkstückeiche, Kierspe, NRW 01.jpg

  • Nomination Fünfmarkstückeiche, ND 2.3.2, südöstlich v. Haus Rhade, 58566 Kierspe. By User:YvoBentele --XRay 11:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good quality.--ArildV 15:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose I'm not convinced here, it definitely lacks detail. --Poco a poco 15:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support - The sky is slightly noisy, but a good landscape, and in a landscape, it is unnecessary to focus on the small details of individual trees and blades of grass. -- Ikan Kekek 18:26, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Per Poco.--Ermell 06:59, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support per Ikan Kekek. --Granada 11:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Granada 11:27, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

File:20180515_Freistadt_2022.jpg

20180515 Freistadt 2022.jpg

  • Nomination Freistadt: Sowjetrussischer Soldatenfriedhof Freistadt. By User:Ailura --Granada 18:26, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose excesive marque Top distracting and noise --The Photographer 19:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
    I want more opinios on this image. --Granada 05:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support - Per The Photographer, I wish the leaves ended a little closer to the viewer's eye. However, I like the composition with the streaming leaves very much, and I think the result is acceptable for QIC. -- Ikan Kekek 06:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good enough for QI.--Ermell 07:04, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Basotxerri 14:42, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_Börnste,_Wiese_--_2018_--_2359.jpg

Dülmen, Börnste, Wiese -- 2018 -- 2359.jpg

  • Nomination Gate to a Pasture in the hamlet Börnste, Kirchspiel, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany in the hamlet Börnste, Kirchspiel, Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 03:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Insufficient quality. DOF Why f/2.8. Sorry --Moroder 09:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment IMO f/2.8 is good to have the gate sharp. The gate is the motive and it's sharp. It not necessary to have the background or the foreground sharp. --XRay 16:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Intentional DOF, good lighting, and composition. The gate as main motive should be mentioned in the file name and/or the file description just to make it easier for users seeking for an image of a gate. --Smial 09:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
I've modified the description to show that the motive is the gate. --XRay 10:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support - OK, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 10:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • {{o}} Sorry, DOF (blurred areas at background and foreground do not seem adequate for QI IMO) and chromatic aberrations (see note). Also, the picture (the subject) seems tilted CW.--Lmbuga 12:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓  Fixed CAs fixed. Thanks for your advice. And I don't think it's titled. The gate itself, yes. The camera was in level.--XRay 15:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Weak support I don't like to much the picture. It's on the limit. It is evident that the gate is tilted. The surprising thing is that none of the posts is right. I think. Despite believing that you say, I think that if the less crooked (or tilted) post was right, the photo would improve (but I have no right to ask you that). Thanks for your understanding and your photos (es:Es evidente que la verja está torcida. Lo sorprendente es que ninguno de los postes esté derecho. Te creo. A pesar de creerte, pienso que si el poste menos torcido estuviese derecho la foto mejoraría (pero no tengo derecho a pedirte eso). Gracias por tu comprensión y tus fotos.) --Lmbuga 13:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you. The posts are not in a level, just natural wood. I would expect the post on the left should be vertical, but it isn't. It is not easy to find true verticals in this photograph. --XRay 21:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --XRay 20:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

File:Christmas_Tram,_Budapest.jpg

Christmas Tram, Budapest.jpg

  • Nomination: Christmas Tram, Budapest, HungaryI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:. By User:Epistola8 --Shizhao 03:13, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Review
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg  Neutral I think this images deserves a CR discussion: on the one hand I see an interesting, abstract, freaky and cool shot, on the other hand I can't see anything in focus (camera shake?). --Basotxerri 08:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose I can see the effect the photographer was going for, but I don't think it succeeded in this case.--Peulle 11:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose as per Peulle -- Bijay chaurasia 09:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support A not common sight. I am amazed and I think it achieves QI status in its kind. --Milseburg 14:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Per Milseburg -- Basile Morin 08:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg  Weak support --Billy69150 15:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose This is good photo from an artistic point of view, but as encyclopedic value it's not QI for me. Tournasol7 17:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support - This is not Wikipedia. It's a repository of photos, and this is quite a striking one. -- Ikan Kekek 17:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose artistic value ≠ quality. Maybe FP, but not QI. --MB-one 09:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support good quality light in motion blur image Christian Ferrer 19:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Perhaps modern art but no QI for me -- Spurzem 20:25, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose --Ralf Roletschek 20:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support --Jacek Halicki 11:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Out of date clock icon 2.svg Inconclusive result after 8 consensual review days   --Peulle 11:53, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


Časový rozvrh (kdy uplyne 15 dní od nominace)

út 15 5. → st 23 5.
st 16 5. → čt 24 5.
čt 17 5. → pá 25 5.
pá 18 5. → so 26 5.
so 19 5. → ne 27 5.
ne 20 5. → po 28 5.
po 21 5. → út 29 5.
út 22 5. → st 30 5.
st 23 5. → čt 31 5.