Commons:良質な画像の推薦

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Quality images candidates and the translation is 98% 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Outdated translations are marked like this.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
推薦一覧に移動
Other languages:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Bahasa Melayu • ‎Canadian English • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Nederlands • ‎Türkçe • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎galego • ‎latviešu • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎čeština • ‎македонски • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎मैथिली • ‎ไทย • ‎中文 • ‎日本語
float

ここは「良質な画像」を選定するため候補画像を集めたページです。 「秀逸な画像」とは違う事に注意して下さい。 加えて、自身の投稿した写真について何か意見(フィードバック)がほしいならば、コモンズ:写真の批評で見ることができます。

目的

「良質な画像」の目的は、コモンズのの活動の基盤となっている人々、すなわちコレクションの拡大につながる独特の画像を提供している個々の利用者を応援することにあります。 「秀逸な画像」がコモンズにアップロードされた作品を最高峰を示すのに対し、「良質な画像」は良質な写真をコモンズに登録するよう、利用者に呼びかけ力づけることを目指します。
加えて良質な画像のページは、特定の画像の質を上げるよう他の利用者に例を示す場所としても使われるべきです。

ガイドライン

良質な画像への推薦はコモンズユーザー自身が作成したものに限ります。

画像を推薦する方へ

以下の説明は良質な画像への全般的なガイドラインです。より詳しい評価基準は画像のガイドラインを参照して下さい。


画像に要求されるもの
  1. 著作権の状況。良質な画像の候補作は適合するライセンスを添えてコモンズに投稿しなければなりません。ライセンスの要件全文はCommons:コピーライト・タグをご参照ください。
  2. 画像はすべてコモンズの方針と慣例に従うものとし、Commons:識別可能な人物の写真も対象です。
  3. 良質な画像には意味のあるファイル名をつけ、適切なカテゴリに分類し、ファイルページに1つ以上の言語で的確な説明を書くものとします。必須条件ではありませんが、英語による説明を添えてください。
  4. 画像に広告や宣伝が入っていないこと。著作権と著作者情報は画像のページに配置し、画像のメタデータに含めることも可能ですが、画像の内容に干渉しないようにします。


作者

良質な画像の審査対象になるには、作者がウィキメディアンである必要があります。その意味するところは、たとえば Flickr からインポートした画像は対象外です。(秀逸な画像にはこの制限はありません。) 二次元の美術品を再現した写真作品はウィキメディアンが作家の場合は対象です(コモンズのガイドラインに従い、ライセンスは必ず PD-old が適用できること)。 もし作者がウィキメディアンではないのに画像が選出された場合は、間違いが発見された時点で速やかに良質な画像の資格を外す必要があります。

撮影技術

さらに詳細な評価基準はイメージガイドラインを参照して下さい。


解像度

ビットマック画像 (JPEG、PNG、GIF、TIFF) は通常、サイズが2 メガピクセル以上ひつようです。審査者は撮影が楽な画像について、もっと大きなサイズを要求する場合があります。 理由はコモンズに登録された画像はプリントアウトしたり解像度の非常に高いモニターに投影したり、あるいは将来的に開発されるメディアで使用される可能性があります。この規則はベクター画像 (SVG) やコンピュータで合成した画像でフリーライセンスの適用対象もしくはオープンソフトウェアプログラムを利用し、なおかつ画像の説明に明記したものは対象外です。


画像品質

デジタル画像は取り込みや処理において様々な問題が生じている可能性があります。予防可能なノイズ、JPEG圧縮の際の問題、シャドウ、ハイライト部分の情報不足、色の取り込みにおける問題、これらの問題はすべて正しく処理されている必要があります。


構図と照明効果

画像内の主題の配置は画像に役立つ位置に置くべきです。前景と背景の物がじゃまになっていてはいけません。照明とピントも相対的な評価に直結します。主題はピントがシャープで、ごちゃごちゃせず露光が十分である必要があります。


価値観点

我々の目標は、コモンズを通して行われる、ウィキメディアの他のプロジェクト群において有用となる良質な画像の投稿を、奨励することにあります。


推薦方法

Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list の候補画像リストの節に以下の行を追記するだけで推薦することが可能です。

File:画像名.jpg|{{/Nomination|簡潔に画像の説明を記入  --~~~~ |}}

画像の説明は簡単で構いません。また、ひとつ前の候補画像との間には何もない行を一行残しておいてください。

自分以外のウィキメディアンの画像を推薦する場合、作者の利用者名を以下の例のように説明文内に示す

File:画像名.jpg|{{/Nomination|数語の画像説明 (投票者[[User:利用者名|利用者名]]) --~~~~ |}}

ご注意:推薦の手順を簡略化するガジェットとして QInominator があります。 ファイルページの上部に「この画像を良質な画像に推薦する」というリンクが小さく表示されます。このリンクを押すと、画像は候補一覧に追加されます。この一覧が済んだらCommons:Quality images candidates/candidate listを編集します。編集ウィンドウの上部に表示される緑色の棒をクリックすると、条件を満たす候補作がすべて、編集窓に加わります。


推薦数

推薦に際しては、あなたが最高と評価する画像を慎重に選んで下さい。一度に選べる枚数はひとり当たり1日5点以内です。

Note: If possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.


画像評価

評価するには登録ユーザーで、なおかつ登録後10日以上経過し、編集回数50回以上であること、作者でも推薦者でもないことを満たすと資格があります。
評価者は推薦者と同様に画像のガイドラインを基準に画像の評価をしてください。


評価方法

状態の更新方法

画像の評価は慎重に行って下さい。画像は等倍サイズで開き、品質基準を満たしているかどうかを確認して下さい。

  • その画像が品質を満たしていると判断したら、下記のように該当箇所を書き換えます。
File:画像名.jpg|{{/Nomination| 数語の画像説明 --~~~~ |}}

から以下に書き換えます。

File:画像名.jpg|{{/Promotion| 画像説明 --推薦者署名 | 評価理由 --~~~~ }}

つまりテンプレートを /Nomination から /Promotion へ切り替え、署名をし、可能ならコメントを記入するのみです。

  • 画像が基準を満たしていないと判断した場合は、下記の様に書き換えます。
File:画像名.jpg|{{/Nomination| 数語の画像説明 --~~~~ |}}

から以下に書き換えます。

File:画像名.jpg|{{/Decline| 画像説明 --推薦者署名 | 評価理由 --~~~~ }}

言い換えると、テンプレートを/Nomination から /Decline に変更して利用者の著名を付与、落選した画像の分類を示す文を付け加えることもできます (ガイドラインから節の題名を利用)。 もし問題が多い場合は最も深刻な順に2点もしくは3点に絞り込むか、複数の問題あり と提示してください。推薦作を落選とする場合は、理由を推薦者のトークページに記入します – 規則として丁寧な文面で読んだ人を勇気づけることです。そのメッセージには決定の詳細を説明します。

ご注意:推薦日の古い順に審査し、可能な限り、ご自分が推薦した点数と少なくとも同数の作品を評価してください。


評価猶予期間から決定まで

最初の票が入ってから2日(正味48時間)以内に反対投票がない場合、当該の画像は評価に従い候補もしくは候補外となります。反対意見がある場合は状態を Discuss に変更すると、当該の画像は 同意審査 Consensual review 節へ移動されます。


結論の出し方

上記の猶予期間2日が過ぎると、QICbotは自動的に投票結果が出たものとして処理し、候補作に推薦された画像はCommons:Quality Images/Recently promotedにキャッシュされます。カテゴリ付与が済むと自動的に適切な良質な画像ページに追加されます。

もし皆さんが、秀逸な画像の地位に匹敵する特別な画像を発見したと思われた場合は、ぜひこの機会に当該画像をCommons:Featured picture candidatesに推薦してみてはいかがでしょうか。

  • 審査を待機中の画像は枠線がブルーの枠線内に推薦文を表示
  • 審査者が当選と認めた画像は枠線が緑色
  • 審査者が落選と決めた画像は枠線が赤色


評価を受けなかった画像(青枠のまま)

推薦されこのページに掲出された画像は8日以内に、当落どちらの票も集まらなかった場合、あるいは合意に至らなかった(つまり同意審査で賛成票と反対票が同数だった)場合、当該の画像は推薦なしとしてCommons:Quality images candidates/Archives September 25 2020にアーカイブしてこのページからは削除し、画像の説明ページのカテゴリ欄にCategory:Unassessed QI candidatesを追加します。


同意審査のプロセス

同意審査とはよく目にする呼び方で、上記の手順で合意が得られず、他の意見を求める必要がある事例に使われます。

同意審査の申請をするには

手続きは状態を/Promotion, /Decline から /Discuss に変えるだけで、審査の直後にご自分のコメントを記入してください。ボットの自動処理により、当該画像は1日以内に同意審査節へ移動されます。

同意審査へ申し送りする対象は、すでに当選・落選の審査が済んだ画像のみとします。審査者として、もしもご自分で判断がつかない場合には当該画像をこのページに置いたまま、コメントを添えます。


同意審査のルール

Commons:良質な画像の候補#ルールをご参照ください

ページの再読み込み: purge this page's cache

Nominations

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures will only work on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 17:17, 25 9月 2020 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms

September 25, 2020

September 24, 2020

September 23, 2020

September 22, 2020

September 21, 2020

September 20, 2020

September 19, 2020

September 18, 2020

September 17, 2020

September 16, 2020

September 15, 2020

September 14, 2020

September 13, 2020

September 12, 2020

September 11, 2020

September 7, 2020

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:Potton_House_Big_Spring_Texas.jpg

Potton House Big Spring Texas.jpg

  • Nomination Potton House in Big Spring, Texas, U.S. By User:Nv8200pa --Another Believer 22:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Halavar 22:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but it looks like heavily downsized phone picture. Straightening verticals would be good --Podzemnik 03:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Podzemnik. -- Ikan Kekek 07:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The sky near the horizon is badly artifacted --ReneeWrites 12:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 09:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Tulsi_Marg_Street_and_Gate_to_City_Palace,_Jaipur,_20191218_1240_9216.jpg

Tulsi Marg Street and Gate to City Palace, Jaipur, 20191218 1240 9216.jpg

  • Nomination Tulsi Marg Street and the gate to the City Palace in Jaipur --Jakubhal 16:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Confusing composition and focus lies on the metal frame object in front --MB-one 19:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ok, I would like to check other opinions. --Jakubhal 19:25, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Object in the front disturbs the composition, also because it is not sharp enough --Michielverbeek 20:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It's a strange composition but IMO not the worse for that, and you've captured some of the chaos and randomness of urban living. -- Ikan Kekek 07:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support -- Spurzem 08:40, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg weak contra The object in front disturbs the composition even through that large shadow there. --Augustgeyler 09:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 09:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Piazzetta_dalmata_nudo_Vittoriale_degli_Italiani.jpg

Piazzetta dalmata nudo Vittoriale degli Italiani.jpg

  • Nomination Nude on Piazzetta dalmata square at the Vittoriale degli Italiani. --Moroder 09:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Halavar 10:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think it is a bit overexposed. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 12:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. -- Ikan Kekek 07:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 09:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Lilium_albanicum,_Jablanica_mountain.jpg

Lilium albanicum, Jablanica mountain.jpg

  • Nomination Lilium albanicum in Jablanica mountain --Liridon 07:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request I don't see any reviews done by you as requested by QIC guidelines for each nomination --Moroder 08:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nice picture, but too much background with no information. Maybe cropping to potrait helps here. --Tigerente 21:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not eligible for QIC --Moroder 21:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 09:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Flowers_of_Jablanica_Mountain_(White_Crocus).jpg

Flowers of Jablanica Mountain (White Crocus).jpg

  • Nomination White Crocus, Jablanica Mountain --Liridon 07:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --XRay 09:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request I don't see any reviews done by you as requested by QIC guidelines for each nomination --Moroder 08:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not eligible for QIC --Moroder 08:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 09:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Steirischer_Ölkürbis_Feld_Allhaming_20200911b.jpg

Steirischer Ölkürbis Feld Allhaming 20200911b.jpg

  • Nomination Field of Cucurbita pepo var. styriaca, Austria. Ready for mechanical harvesting --Tigerente 21:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Aristeas 08:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request I don't see any reviews done by you as requested by QIC guidelines for each nomination --Moroder 09:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 09:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Khosh_Bagh_Cemetery.jpg

Khosh Bagh Cemetery.jpg

  • Nomination Khosh Bagh Cemetery in Murshidabad. By User:DeepanjanGhosh --Bodhisattwa 11:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. The white building in the background is a bit overexposed, but IMHO we can tolerate this for the overall quality. --Aristeas 08:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree, BTW I don't see any review done by the nominator as requested by QIC guidelines for each nomination --Moroder 04:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 09:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Guy_Zohar.jpg

Guy Zohar.jpg

  • Nomination Guy Zohar. By User:Channel10israel --Andrew J.Kurbiko 17:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not the work of a commoner --DXR 06:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is created and uploaded by the 10th Channel, part of the People Pictures Project of Wikimedia Israel --Andrew J.Kurbiko 15:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Vincent60030 08:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We should discuss find out if the creator was a commoner --Augustgeyler 13:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 09:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

File:GAZ_"Tigr"_(black_colored)_during_the_"Armiya_2020"_exhibition.jpg

GAZ "Tigr" (black colored) during the "Armiya 2020" exhibition.jpg

  • Nomination Armored SUV "Tigr" during the "Armiya 2020" exhibition --Kirill Borisenko 22:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please fix the overexposed area. --SCP-2000 08:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose even if overexposure could be fixed (which I doubt), the shot is very average, with disturbing shadows and cluttered composition. Some parts look overprocessed too. --Yerpo 08:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Is that better? --Kirill Borisenko 01:10, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Large areas blown. -- Ikan Kekek 07:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 09:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Jelgava_Churches_17.jpg

Jelgava Churches 17.jpg

  • Nomination Framed Icon of Mary and Jesus at Orthodox Cathedral in Jelgava --Scotch Mist 06:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm sorry, but the viewing angle isn't well chosen. Uneven sharpness in the relevant areas. Color fringes in the upper left corner. --Zinnmann 07:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Zinnmann: Thank you for your review but the angle was dictated by the incense urn hanging in front of the painting (see left side) so I had no choice but to photograph from the side which was certainly not 'ideal' --Scotch Mist 09:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Hard circumstances may keep an object from being photographed as a quality one.--Augustgeyler 09:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 09:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

File:2015_Kraków,_Teatr_im._Juliusza_Słowackiego_01.jpg

2015 Kraków, Teatr im. Juliusza Słowackiego 01.jpg

  • Nomination Juliusz Słowacki Theatre. Kraków, Lesser Poland Voivodeship, Poland. --Halavar 10:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please correct the horizontal lines, it gives the impression it is falling--Moroder 06:09, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
* ✓ Done Thanks for the hint. New fixed version uploaded. Please take a look again. --Halavar 19:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Tagooty 02:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg weak contra I am still unsure about the horizontal lines. Lets discuss this. --Augustgeyler 10:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Another try. Hope is better now:) --Halavar 10:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 09:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

File:_Treis,_ehem._Pfarrkirche_-_Schlussstein_Hand_Gottes_(2020-09-20_Sp).jpg

Treis, ehem. Pfarrkirche - Schlussstein Hand Gottes (2020-09-20 Sp).jpg

  • Nomination Keystone “Hand of god” in the choir of the former parish church in Treis -- Spurzem 12:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Withdrawn
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose not sharp enough --Augustgeyler 13:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If you look at the picture larger than the original key­stone, it is actually not absolute­ly sharp. Never­the­less, I would ask you to dis­cuss whether it does not meet the require­ments for a QI. -- Spurzem 14:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg weak support Not the sharpest, but still OK IMO. --Palauenc05 17:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Since no one else seems to like the picture, I withdraw it. -- Spurzem 08:38, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hallo Lothar, wenn ich noch eine Anmerkung machen darf: Es ist nicht so, dass niemand Dein Foto mag (ich z.B. finde solche Schlussstein-Fotos immer sehr spannend und freue mich über jedes Bild, so auch über dieses!), sondern bei dieser Aufnahme scheint leider einfach der Fokus ein bisschen danebenzuliegen. Das ist mir auch schon passiert, der Autofokus hat manchmal Probleme mit den feinen Strukturen und der Dunkelheit im Gewölbe, und auch manuell sind solche Motive wegen der Dunkelheit nicht leicht scharfzustellen. Daher nichts für ungut, das passiert einfach jedem mal. Dokumentarisch ist das Bild dennoch wertvoll und sehr gut brauchbar. --Aristeas 08:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Hallo Aristeas, das Problem ist, dass die Anforderungen an das Material, mit dem fotogiert wird, hier immer höher werden und ich keine 10.000 Euro oder mehr habe, um eine hochwertige Kamera und entsprechende Objektive zu kaufen. Spaß hätte ich an einer solchen Ausrüstung sehr wohl, obwohl es für die kurze Zeit, die ich als fast 80-Jähriger noch vor mir haben kann, nicht mehr lohnen würde. Viele Grüße -- Spurzem 12:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 10:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

File:La_chiesa_di_Santa_Croce_vista_dalla_Torre.jpg

La chiesa di Santa Croce vista dalla Torre.jpg

  • Nomination The church of Santa Croce seen from the Tower of Populonia with the Gulf of Baratti in the background --PROPOLI87 09:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support good composition. very interesting lighting situation. --Augustgeyler 09:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, not sharp enough, in my opinion, and the land across the gulf looks too blue. -- Ikan Kekek 10:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I corrected, now okay? -- PROPOLI87 11:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment No. -- Ikan Kekek 11:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done I can not do more than that otherwise with each change the photo gets worse -- PROPOLI87 12:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's probably not fixable, then, although you could always try redeveloping it from the RAW if you have it, but don't ask me for advice on how; I can tell you what I see, but I usually photograph only with my iPhone and don't have very advanced Photoshop skills. -- Ikan Kekek 10:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC):::Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentI started all over again and re-released a new version on quality. I like this photo and I'm working on it till I drop. Thanks for the help and targeted criticism, which are allowing me to improve my photos more and more.PROPOLI87 07:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 07:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, not sharp enough,look at the entrance of the chapel. --Palauenc05 06:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This version seems a bit overcooked to me. Colours and contrast have become quite harsh. I would say that the original is still the best version, and you could enhance it with smaller tweaks—such as raising the colour temperature to remove the blueish colour cast; if the sea is still too blue, you could consider to selectively de-saturate the blue colours. The original has plenty of contrast already in my opinion. Like Ikan says, I suggest you work on the RAW file if available so that you can freely dial back your processing if necessary (or to start working from scratch from the original version).-- Lion-hearted85 12:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
    ✓ DoneI followed your advice and made this new version. I don't even know if I could have made this correction at this stage, but I did.PROPOLI87 13:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)PROPOLI87PROPOLI87 13:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for your effort, but I doubt if you can improve this image. Just look at that tree, or whatever it is, next to the entrance of the church. This part of the picture is still quite blurry. --Palauenc05 14:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Palauenc05 06:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Gruppo_del_compianto_Duomo_di_Salò.jpg

Gruppo del compianto Duomo di Salò.jpg

  • Nomination Woodcarved polichromed statues of the Lamentation of Christ group in the Santa Maria Annunziata church in Salò. --Moroder 03:16, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm trying to overlook the glare in the top of the image (coming from a light source out of shot), but it overwhelms and harms the contrast on the leading figure's head. Out of curiosity, was a lens hood used? --Bobulous 19:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I disagree. Yes, but a lens hood protects from glare on the lens, Not on the object. I think the glare on the head is irrelevant compared to the object photographed under very difficult conditions. --Moroder 02:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per above. If you focus on the blown areas at full size, they look bad, but they're pretty minimal in the context of the entire photo. -- Ikan Kekek 10:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree with Ikan Kekek --Scotch Mist 13:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg weak contra I take into account there had been hard lighting conditions but I still see this very light part on the top producing a blueish haze letting this picture not become a quality one. --Augustgeyler (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Ikan Kekek 10:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

File:EBACE_2019,_Le_Grand-Saconnex_(EB190529).jpg

EBACE 2019, Le Grand-Saconnex (EB190529).jpg

  • Nomination Cessna 208B Grand Caravan EX on static display at EBACE 2019, Palexpo, Switzerland --MB-one 16:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Vincent60030 08:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Distracting background, the light is coming from wrong direction. --Kallerna 11:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The relatively sharp background interacts badly with the main object. --Augustgeyler 10:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. -- Ikan Kekek 10:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 10:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Mercedes-Benz,_Techno-Classica_2018,_Essen_(IMG_9286).jpg

Mercedes-Benz, Techno-Classica 2018, Essen (IMG 9286).jpg

  • Nomination Wooden toolbox on a Mercedes-Benz 680 Sport at Techno-Classica 2018, Essen --MB-one 16:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Vincent60030 08:54, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose For a static object like this box, there should be more sharpness and detail. And the picture should be cropped a little more. --Augustgeyler 13:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 10:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Raviv_Drucker.jpg

Raviv Drucker.jpg

  • Nomination Raviv Drucker. By User:Channel10israel --Andrew J.Kurbiko 17:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not the work of a commoner --DXR 06:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is created and uploaded by the 10th Channel, part of the People Pictures Project of Wikimedia Israel --Andrew J.Kurbiko 15:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality --ReneeWrites 19:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree, there is a black noise on the top right corner. Please edit the picture @Andrew J.Kurbiko, Channel10israel: --Vincent60030 05:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No problem from me now since it is edited. --Vincent60030 05:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose Per DXR:not the work of a commoner --Moroder 07:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

*Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per se ineligible per others. -- Ikan Kekek 07:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Moroder, Ikan Kekek: are you sure? The comment earlier mentioned that the uploader is part of the Wikimedia project. But if this picture is to be rejected, then the other two in Sept 19 should be rejected too. Please check and thanks for the review <3 --Vincent60030 09:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry for the mistake. Careless on my part. -- Ikan Kekek 10:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Vincent60030:, @Ikan Kekek: The point is not who and how the images were uploaded but who is the creator: "Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status" --Moroder 11:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The account has a discussion page though. If this is opposed, then might as well strip the status of all of the QIs of this user. So I am not sure about it. --Vincent60030 11:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • There is no evidence that this and the other photos are done by a commoner so there is no way that this and the other photos can be qualified QI --Moroder 10:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

File:WLM_-_2020_-_Stralsund_-_Rathaus.jpg

WLM - 2020 - Stralsund - Rathaus.jpg

  • Nomination The Town hall of Stralsund, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany. --Moahim 15:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A bit oversaturated. The guy with the bag looks weired. --Ermell 20:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Done with saturation. I cannot fix the guy now. --Moahim 18:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No QI for me. Sorry. --Ermell 19:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This fits more for an Instagram post, but sorry not a QI. --Vincent60030 05:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose probably exposure bracketing? Doesn't work well with moving objects or persons in the scene. --Smial 11:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Vincent60030 05:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

File:WLM_-_2020_-_Stralsund_-_Lotsenhaus.jpg

WLM - 2020 - Stralsund - Lotsenhaus.jpg

  • Nomination The "Pilot House", Stralsund, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany. --Moahim 07:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good quality but the sky is to dark imo. --ArildV 08:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Actually, I think it looks great against the dark (polarised?) sky. But I'd crop out a lot of the bottom which shows too much dead space. (I might also try cropping out the portable toilets and see whether that worked.) --Bobulous 20:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Yes, the sky is polarized. I tried new crop. --Moahim 18:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, that's much better, giving more attention to the building and the boat. --Bobulous 21:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, we need to discuss the dark sky. --ArildV 17:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, the sky looks over-edited which does not appear natural. --Vincent60030 05:56, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The darkened sky is not the result of editing, but a natural effect of using a polarising filter. I think in this case it gave a very dramatic look, and focused attention on the rich texture and colour of the building. --Bobulous 19:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
      • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral hmm after the edit I think it is more balanced now as it was really intense. --Vincent60030 10:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Setting the polarizer to maximum effect is a matter of taste. I can not see technical issues preventing QI status. --Smial 11:20, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark. --Kallerna 11:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done So. let's try new version. --Moahim 18:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Am I right in thinking that each time a new version is created, all votes are effectively zeroed, and only votes made after the change are counted? If so, count this as a vote for the new version. --Bobulous 19:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment No, all previous votes for the old version remain. --ReneeWrites 22:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMHO it’s OK now. --Aristeas 07:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Looks much better now, but the upper part of the building and its roof are showing too much distortion.--Augustgeyler 10:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, but I disagree with this remark. This is rather a feature of architecture. --Moahim 18:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question What kind of distortion do you mean? No offence, I just wanted to ask. --Aristeas 16:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Moahim, Aristeas: The outer vertical lines are opening to the top and getting strongly closer to the bottom. --Augustgeyler (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Augustgeyler: Ah, thank you! Yes, I see this, but I would assume that this is a historical building which just does not have perfectly straight walls. In photos like this one it is often not possible to find a correction which makes all vertical lines perfectly vertical. If I compare other vertical lines in the photo, e.g. the lamp posts or the railing of the stairs, I would guess that Moahim has done a good job and found the a good compromise; because if we would make the vertical lines of the building straight, other vertical lines would be leaning in. Best, --Aristeas 09:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Aristeas: You are absolutely right. That's why I would try to take such a picture with a longer focal length or try to find a higher standpoint for not having to tilt the camera to the sky that much. But, well, it might be a matter of taste. There is still a majority voting pro. Best regards --Augustgeyler 09:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per others, but geocode would be fine. --Palauenc05 06:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
    ✓ Done I added geocode --Moahim 08:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg --Palauenc05 10:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Palauenc05 06:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

File:SEG_5992_3-5000-114.jpg

SEG 5992 3-5000-114.jpg

  • Nomination Rothschild Boulevard 89. By User:Degser --Andrew J.Kurbiko 08:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hi there, parts of it look tilted. Degser could a perspective correction be done? --Vincent60030 10:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please fill in a reason why the image does not meet the guidelines. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 21:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Excuse me @Andrew J.Kurbiko:, please open your eyes before you move this to discussion. I asked for a perspective correction, and I never rejected the picture. --Vincent60030 05:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Oh, sorry, I simply used a standard template red template to remove nomination by myself. I can not fix it by myself, and the author is most probably inactive. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 07:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think the cars are a disturbing foreground element as they are depicted.--Peulle 07:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Peulle --Michielverbeek 06:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Michielverbeek 06:01, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Diamond DA62, AERO 2018, Friedrichshafen (1X7A4399-HDR).jpg

Diamond DA62, AERO 2018, Friedrichshafen (1X7A4399-HDR).jpg

  • Nomination Diamond DA52 at AERO Friedrichshafen 2018 --MB-one 08:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Basile Morin 10:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunate crop, wings cut off, distracting tent in the background, sloppy description. --Palauenc05 17:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I have to agree with Palauenc05. I like to allow a lot of leeway in composition for QIs, but this composition is a real jumble to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek 11:52, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Crispy sharp and good light for me. The current composition highlights the fuselage with open doors. This is a choice of the photographer to display the plane in full or to focus on some specific parts. See Category:Aircraft doors and Category:Aircraft fuselages. The file was named "Diamond DA52, AERO 2018, Friedrichshafen". This is a descriptive title in my opinion. Diamond DA52 is the model of this plane. "AERO 2018" probably the exposition, and Friedrichshafen the city in Germany. Now the description has been improved by the author accordingly -- Basile Morin 00:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If it is meant to focus on the details, the caption should have been more specific. Captions are very important, which provides another form of description for the picture. --Vincent60030 05:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Distracting background. --Kallerna 11:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, the distracting background is still there, the picture looks like a random shot rather than a quality one. The file name does not replace a proper description. Although this has been done in the meantime, I keep my oppose vote for the above-mentioned reason. --Palauenc05 12:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Palauenc05 12:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Train_station,_Flensburg_(P1060149).jpg

Train station, Flensburg (P1060149).jpg

  • Nomination Elevator at Flensburg train station --MB-one 08:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Basile Morin 10:27, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad lighting situation --Augustgeyler 11:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality, and perfectly OK lighting for this kind of motif. -- Ikan Kekek 11:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support We know you have a picky taste Augustgeyler, and a number of others as well, but QI isn't a FP candidate. This is just describing a lift from the staircase. I expect some objectiveness, and lighting is perfectly fine here so I do not know what's the issue. --Vincent60030 05:55, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Vincent60030: I know that this is not about FP candidates. In this case I see your point. But I thought the chosen perspective does not give enough light. Perhaps you are right. And of course I respect every majority voting different to me. But could you please be so kind not reviewing my taste or whatever you think my taste might be?--Augustgeyler 22:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark. --Kallerna 11:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Ermell 20:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Lengurbill_beach_09.jpg

Lengurbill beach 09.jpg

  • Nomination Lengurbill beach, Teknaf, Cox's Bazar. --RockyMasum 01:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. I especially like how the light hits the water, but not the beach. Excellent timing! --Kritzolina 08:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose good composition. But there is very low detail due to hard compression --Augustgeyler 11:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Please do not repeatedly confuse noise reduction with JPEG compression. JPEG, quality: 98, subsampling ON (2x2) is completely acceptable. --Smial 10:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Perfectly good to me. This is a photo of an overall scene and doesn't need to show each person or any other element in great detail. -- Ikan Kekek 11:58, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Noise reduction is a bit on the high side, therefore my "weak" support. --Smial 13:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilted, bad light. --Kallerna 11:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't see any reviews done by RockyMasum as requested by QIC guidelines for each nomination--Moroder 04:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Moroder 04:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Lengurbill_beach_10.jpg

Lengurbill beach 10.jpg

  • Nomination Lengurbill beach, Teknaf, Cox's Bazar. --RockyMasum 01:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Kritzolina 08:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nice composition, but there is very low detail --Augustgeyler 11:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There's no need for detail on the boat, but I'd like to see the photo de-noised and may oppose if it is not. -- Ikan Kekek 12:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too dark, tilted, no detail. --Kallerna 11:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't see any reviews done as requested by QIC guidelines for each nomination--Moroder 04:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Moroder 04:18, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Jelgava_01.jpg

Jelgava 01.jpg

  • Nomination Sign-posted Way (on Lielā iela) into Jelgava, in Latvia, with Holy Trinity Tower on left --Scotch Mist 05:53, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The picture should be cropped if it is to describe the sign. --Vincent60030 07:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you for your review but do not agree the image should be cropped further as the first part of the sign refers to the Holy Trinity Church Tower which is visible on the left --Scotch Mist 08:41, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hmm how about we take this to discussion? The caption is not on point in this case. --Vincent60030 10:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think the picture's fine, and doesn't need to be changed or cropped, though I think the description would be more accurate if it included the name of the street as well (it's part of the picture, after all). I would also like if the information about the church was included in the summary, and/or if the summary included information of that street or area generally, rather than a short history of the entire city. --ReneeWrites 15:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done @ReneeWrites: Thank you for your constructive comment the details of which I have implemented --Scotch Mist 18:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is too much sky. Its cropped to hard at the bottom. The shadows are too dark due to hard lighting conditions. --Augustgeyler (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Augustgeyler: The first reviewer indicated that the image should be cropped further but your comment indicates that the image was cropped too hard at the bottom - these appear to be both opposing and subjective opinions and neither appear to reflect the 'balance' I intended being of course my own subjective opinion!:) --Scotch Mist 18:12, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Scotch Mist: You are right. I think that this is exactly what it is about: It is about making a decision. You could decide to only tell about the sign. In that case, there can be much more cropping like @Vincent60030: said. On the other hand you could decide to tell something about the hole scenery, including the street, the church and the sign. In this case, I really suggest to show more street. Your version did not decide for any of this options. That's why I opposed. --Augustgeyler 22:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Disagree with the above comment. --ReneeWrites 17:06, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad light, not sure about the subject. --Kallerna 11:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Palauenc05 14:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Monumento_a_Giuseppe_Zanardelli_a_Salò.jpg

Monumento a Giuseppe Zanardelli a Salò.jpg

  • Nomination Detail monument to Giuseppe Zanardelli in Salò. --Moroder 00:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good image quality. --Tagooty 03:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose shoes are cropped --Augustgeyler 12:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Augustgeyler. --Fischer.H 17:22, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good image quality - IMO a tiny portion of missing shoe sole does not distract from the image of this impressive sculpture, dominated by Giuseppe's expressive head\face!--Scotch Mist 18:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'll admit the cropping isn't ideal, but both shoes are shown in full, so the full figure is included in the picture. It seems like too small a thing to reject an otherwise good image for QI for that. --ReneeWrites 18:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective. --Smial 11:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Smial: The object is a statue not the architecture --Moroder 13:19, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Of course. But tons of images are rejected here because of perspective issues in irrelevant background. Here we have a very prominent background. No double standards. --Smial 11:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support While the bottom isn't perfectly cropped, the perspective and composition is very well done, which perfectly describes the statue. QI for me. --Vincent60030 06:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective. --Kallerna 11:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Please look to the verticals in the background and the bottom cropped is not well done --Michielverbeek 06:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Michielverbeek 06:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


日程表(推薦から8日目)

木 17 9月 → 金 25 9月
金 18 9月 → 土 26 9月
土 19 9月 → 日 27 9月
日 20 9月 → 月 28 9月
月 21 9月 → 火 29 9月
火 22 9月 → 水 30 9月
水 23 9月 → 木 01 10月
木 24 9月 → 金 02 10月
金 25 9月 → 土 03 10月