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 78% 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 • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎svenska • ‎українська
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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Para los nominadores[edit]

A continuación se incluyen las directrices generales para Imágenes de Calidad, y un criterio más detallado está disponible en Directrices de imágenes.

Requisitos de las imágenes[edit]
  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[edit]

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[edit]

Criterios más detallados están disponibles en Directrices de imágenes.

Resolución[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Cómo nominar[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Cómo revisar[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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)[edit]

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 febrero 2016 y añadirle a la imagen la Category:Unassessed QI candidates.

Proceso de revisión de consenso[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Ver Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Actualización de la página: purge this page's cache

Contents

Nominations[edit]

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]] 05:49, 12 febrero 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.

February 12, 2016[edit]

February 11, 2016[edit]

February 10, 2016[edit]

February 9, 2016[edit]

February 8, 2016[edit]

February 7, 2016[edit]

February 6, 2016[edit]

February 4, 2016[edit]

February 3, 2016[edit]

Consensual review[edit]

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[edit]

File:Kazan_Cathedral_Saint_Petersburg.jpg[edit]

Kazan Cathedral Saint Petersburg.jpg

  • Nomination Kazan Cathedral in Saint Petersburg 1905. --Moroder 18:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Badly posterized sky. A pity, as this could have been a wow motif --A.Savin 19:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
    I'd like some other opinion --Moroder 17:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

File:028_2014_08_04_Urlaub_Sulden.jpg[edit]

028 2014 08 04 Urlaub Sulden.jpg

  • Nomination New Parish Church of St. Gertraud. --F. Riedelio 16:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much noise for a quality image.--Rftblr 18:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
    I do not see an overabundance of noise, other than the mountains when very zoomed in. Please point to the areas that are too noisy. --Balon Greyjoy 15:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The whole shadow area of the church exhibits noticeable noise. Some of what at first glance appears to be stains on the facade, is actually horizontal banding noise (horizontal bright stripes above the windows on the apse). For me this is not quality. --Rftblr 23:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Eiffel tower (368).JPG[edit]

Eiffel tower (368).JPG

  • Nomination Eiffel Tower in Paris, France --Rijinatwiki 08:09, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Many chromatic aberrations. The tower is also leaning left a bit --A.Savin 17:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Jardín Botánico Olarizu 03.jpg[edit]

Jardín Botánico Olarizu 03.jpg

  • Nomination Botanical Garden of Olarizu. Vitoria-Gasteiz, Basque Country, Spain --Basotxerri 20:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ermell 08:21, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree, too dark for the real light situation --Hubertl 10:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose @Hubertl: Some s-curving might help to get better exposure, but the image is also blurred by noise reduction, not fixable. -- Smial 09:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 05:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

File:2014_08_18_007_Weingut_Kimich_Deidesheim.jpg[edit]

2014 08 18 007 Weingut Kimich Deidesheim.jpg

  • Nomination Winery Kimich --F. Riedelio 13:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportGood quality. --Jacek Halicki 13:36, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSky overexposed and eating in to neighbouring detail, otherwise good. --Prosthetic Head 16:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 09:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Soodla jõgi. 03.jpg[edit]

Soodla jõgi. 03.jpg

  • Nomination Soodla river (by Aleksandr Abrosimov). Kruusamägi 09:45, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 09:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much noise reduction, has eaten fine detail. --C messier 15:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with C messier. --Rftblr 22:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 09:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:2014_Otmuchów,_kościół_śś._Mikołaja_i_Franciszka_Ksawerego_01.JPG[edit]

2014 Otmuchów, kościół śś. Mikołaja i Franciszka Ksawerego 01.JPG

  • Nomination Saints Nicholas and Francis Xavier church in Otmuchów 1 --Jacek Halicki 00:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 04:38, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunate light situation, with overexposed sky at the left of the church. --C messier 14:46, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 21:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Should be slightly turned anti-clockwise to make the church upright. --Rftblr 22:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good image.-- Шухрат Саъдиев 13:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 09:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:2014_Stary_Paczków,_kościół_Wszystkich_Świętych_02.JPG[edit]

2014 Stary Paczków, kościół Wszystkich Świętych 02.JPG

  • Nomination Church of All Saints in Stary Paczków 1 --Jacek Halicki 00:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --F. Riedelio 12:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The sky is nearly completely blown. Please discuss. --C messier 14:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm sorry Jacek but I agree to Cmessier, the sky does not look nice --Michielverbeek 07:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 21:23, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cloudy sky is ok for me.--Ermell 09:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Burnt sky, not fixable. -- Smial 09:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 09:49, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Benz Vito Tourer W447 Rückansicht.jpg[edit]

Mercedes-Benz Vito Tourer W447 Rückansicht.jpg

  • Nomination Mercedes-Benz Vito Tourer W447 --Basotxerri 18:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Background tilted cw. --Cccefalon 04:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Tilted CCW. Thank you. --Basotxerri 17:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose car is not centered, image does not look balanced --Rftblr 22:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tight crop at the right -- Spurzem 23:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose-- Шухрат Саъдиев 13:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 07:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Benz Vito Tourer W447 Vorderansicht.jpg[edit]

Mercedes-Benz Vito Tourer W447 Vorderansicht.jpg

  • Nomination Mercedes-Benz Vito Tourer W447 --Basotxerri 18:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ok --Cccefalon 04:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose car is not centered, image does not look balanced --Rftblr 22:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too tight crop at the left -- Spurzem 23:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose-- Шухрат Саъдиев 13:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Hubertl 07:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Kamchatka_Brown_Bear_near_Dvuhyurtochnoe_on_2015-07-23.png[edit]

Kamchatka Brown Bear near Dvuhyurtochnoe on 2015-07-23.png

  • Nomination A Kamchatka Brown Bear (wild) near Dvuhyurtochnoe Kamchatka taken on July 23rd, 2015. --Rftblr 17:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Cccefalon 20:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong format: photos should be jp(e)g, not PNG --A.Savin 23:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This batch of photos is my first nomination to QI, I checked them according to the Commons:Image guidelines. If jp(e)g is a requirement for quality photos, why is this not stated there? If it is necessary I will of course retract these nominations, make jpg versions, and make new nominations. --User:rftblr 7:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have now uploaded a JPG version and linked it to the PNG version. I will do this for my other candidates as well. Do I have to retract the PNG version from QI and nominate the JPG version? --User:rftblr 8:03, 8 February 2016(UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment you can keep it as it is, in fact, it´s the same picture. --Hubertl 08:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 08:23, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Can you explain, A.Savin, why this picture should be uploaded as jpg and not in png? --Hubertl 10:18, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I also do not understand this request. Our QIC rules explicetly suggest a resolution for Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF). So what is the problem with png (which also is a FREE format)? --Cccefalon 10:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
See my comment at #File:Mischek_Tower_Vienna_from_W_on_2013-06-14.png. --A.Savin 16:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
You might start a request for changing the rules and find enough supporters for such a motion. But as long as our rules allow png, you cannot just start a mass oppose for png format images of user RftBlr. Sorry to say so, but it is kind of disruptive. --Cccefalon 09:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
+1 -- Smial 11:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good for me. -- Spurzem 08:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good work. -- Smial 11:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A beautiful, well balanced and composed picture. I see no reason for the objection the grounds of format, in fact many consider PNG to be a 'freer' format than JPG (patent concerns). --Prosthetic Head 12:26, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 15:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Ares_Tower_Vienna_from_SW_on_2015-07-10.png[edit]

Ares Tower Vienna from SW on 2015-07-10.png

  • Nomination The Ares Tower in Vienna seen from the south-west on July 10th, 2015. --Rftblr 17:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality although photographs should rather be saved as JPG. --Code 17:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Wrong format: photos should be jp(e)g, not PNG --A.Savin 23:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This batch of photos is my first nomination to QI, I checked them according to the Commons:Image guidelines. If jp(e)g is a requirement for quality photos, why is this not stated there? If it is necessary I will of course retract these nominations, make jpg versions, and make new nominations. --User:rftblr 7:25, 8 February 2016(UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment add a jpg for previewing purposes. rftblr --Hubertl 08:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Hubertl 10:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have now uploaded a JPG version and linked it to the PNG version. --User:rftblr 19:34, 8 February 2016(UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 08:34, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support certainly well above the average quality -- Smial 11:29, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp photo, good perspective a Q1one and a warm welcome to Rftblr --Michielverbeek 08:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 09:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

File:Museu da inconfidencia.JPG[edit]

Museu da inconfidencia.JPG

  • Nomination Museum of the Inconfidência, Ouro Preto, Brazil (by Ricardotakamura) --ArionEstar 21:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 21:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. The overall quality is very bad. Nearly all details are gone. I don't know what happened in the postprocessing but this looks like upscaled ore somewhat. Hard to say. This cannot be QI in my eyes. --Code 14:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • {{o}} CA, noise, posterisation. Sharpening and noise reduction fight against each other. Somewhat too high colour saturation. striked, because without signature --Hubertl 09:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC),br/>
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I would say that for a 30 second exposure the loss of detail is not too bad, if it were downscaled until the detail loss was imperceptable it would still be a large enough image. It is only when viewing at original (very high) resolution that the flaws become very visible. --Prosthetic Head 13:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Severe CAs, perspective not corrected. At full resolution the quality is not acceptable, but downsized at nearly 6 Mpix, the level of detail is OK. And some overexposure on the walls near the lamps. --C messier 15:13, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Heavily processed (sharpened?), real image quality is not high enough at this resolution. --Shansov.net 02:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Шухрат Саъдиев 13:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Hubertl 22:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

File:May2015 Volgograd img06 View from Mamaev Hill.jpg[edit]

May2015 Volgograd img06 View from Mamaev Hill.jpg

  • Nomination Volgograd: view from Mamaev Hill --A.Savin 15:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality: An unfavourable image section (too much foreground), right edge of the image is out of focus. --F. Riedelio 08:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry please other opinion: it is the view as it is at this point, and where do you see any blurred areas? --A.Savin 14:28, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
    • @A.Savin: Please see annotations. --F. Riedelio 13:45, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I understand your issues very well, but I don't get the problem. --A.Savin 16:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
@A.Savin: Please see annotations for my preferred cropping. --F. Riedelio 09:00, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I would say too much sky, but the horizon is at the one third of the image. The composition actually lies at thirds (one sky, one city, one foreground). The lack of sharpness descripted isn't something worth declining (or mentioning). --C messier 15:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support For me is good --Livioandronico2013 21:24, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Шухрат Саъдиев 13:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overall somewhat weak sharpness, blurred details at margins. No double standards, please. -- Smial 18:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
I never nominate pictures without looking if they are sharp enough. That you ape my comment is just stupid, however quite your usual level (Deutsche Wikipedia as it is). --A.Savin 19:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Hubertl 20:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Tabla del tiempo (día 8 tras la nominación)[edit]

jue 04 feb → vie 12 feb
vie 05 feb → sáb 13 feb
sáb 06 feb → dom 14 feb
dom 07 feb → lun 15 feb
lun 08 feb → mar 16 feb
mar 09 feb → mié 17 feb
mié 10 feb → jue 18 feb
jue 11 feb → vie 19 feb
vie 12 feb → sáb 20 feb