Commons:良質な画像の推薦

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Quality images candidates and the translation is 43% complete. Changes to the translation template, respectively the source language can be submitted through Commons:Quality images candidates and have to be approved by a translation administrator.

Outdated translations are marked like this.
推薦一覧に移動
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

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。 Additionally, if you just want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at Commons:Photography critiques.

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。 While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users’ efforts in providing quality images to Commons.
Additionally, quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image.

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イメージ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. 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.


作者

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.

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

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.


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

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.


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。

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.


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。一度に二枚を超える画像を加えた場合”多すぎ”と見なされ、他利用者から難色を示されたり、直ちに枚数を減らされたりすることがあります。


画像評価

評価資格は登録ユーザーであれば誰でもあります。
評価者は推薦者と同様にイメージ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

How to update the status

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、品質基準が満たされ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、下記の様に該当箇所を書き換えます。

File:画像名.jpg|{{/Nomination| 画像説明 --推薦者署名 |}}

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| 画像説明 --推薦者署名 |}}

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

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator’s talk page – as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first and, if possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.


評価猶予期間から決定まで

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


評価を受けなかった画像(青枠のまま)

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 December 15 2017 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


Contents

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]] 09:47, 15 12月 2017 (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.
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

December 15, 2017

December 14, 2017

December 13, 2017

December 12, 2017

December 11, 2017

December 10, 2017

December 9, 2017

December 8, 2017

December 7, 2017

December 6, 2017

December 5, 2017

December 4, 2017

December 2, 2017

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:«Флігель_Тараса_Шевченка»_(Яготин).jpg

«Флігель Тараса Шевченка» (Яготин).jpg

  • Nomination Shevchenko wing of Repnin estate in Yahotyn, Ukraine. By User:SNCH --Ата 14:18, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion Good quality. PumpkinSky 16:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
    I disagree - perspective and CA problems --Jacek Halicki 17:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jacek. -- Ikan Kekek 05:30, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Common_kestrel_(Falco_tinnunculus)_female_India.jpg

Common kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) female India.jpg

  • Nomination Common kestrel (Falco tinnunculus) female, Rajasthan, India --Charlesjsharp 10:15, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion Too few pixels and unsharp --Basile Morin 15:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Pixel number is good. Charlesjsharp 16:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC) Definition is just limit but I see a problem of sharpness here -- Basile Morin 03:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Teletón 2017 - Rocío Marengo - 01.jpg

Teletón 2017 - Rocío Marengo - 01.jpg

  • Nomination Rocío Marengo, Teletón 2017, Santiago, Chile --Carlos yo 18:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Some noise at full resolution, but good enough for me.--Famberhorst 19:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree, it isn't sharp, look for example at the eyes. Sorry, not a QI to me. --Poco a poco 20:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Poco. -- Ikan Kekek 00:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Poco. Also the categories and description are lacking.--Peulle 16:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment OK. Thanks for the review. --Carlos yo 18:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 13:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

File:2017-11-16 Michael Müller (Wiki Loves Parliaments 2017 in Berlin) by Sandro Halank–2.jpg

2017-11-16 Michael Müller (Wiki Loves Parliaments 2017 in Berlin) by Sandro Halank–2.jpg

  • Nomination Michael Müller (SPD), Governing Mayor of Berlin --Sandro Halank 12:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Trougnouf 14:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, too much empty space. Should be portrait format. --XRay 14:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 13:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

File:2017-11-16 Kristian Ronneburg by Sandro Halank.jpg

2017-11-16 Kristian Ronneburg by Sandro Halank.jpg

  • Nomination Kristian Ronneburg (Die Linke) --Sandro Halank 12:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Per XRay, too much empty space on the right Poco a poco 12:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Trougnouf 14:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Note: I just commented it. I didn't reject the image as I was expecting feedback from the author. Poco a poco 21:00, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
I'd set the image to discussion, because I was surprised about the pro vote of Trougnouf while Poco a poco is waiting for the author. --XRay 14:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 13:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Buddhist_child_monk_in_Wat_Phou.jpg

Buddhist child monk in Wat Phou.jpg

  • Nomination Buddhist child monk going down the steps of Wat Phou in Champasak --Basile Morin 14:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Basotxerri 16:52, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, JPEG artifacts, composition and crop looks like random. --XRay 12:23, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, I didn't see the artifacts but I can live with the composition. --Basotxerri 21:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I can't see the JPG artifacts. Would be nice to see them in order to avoid further uploads, but I would prefer of course they weren't there :-) Is 80% compression too weak for Commons ? Concerning the composition, chance or luck is not random. The boy turning back to meet my camera was not expected, however pushing the shutter button at this moment was certainly wanted. The older monks were voluntarily included in the image for their shapes and flashy color. Though these subjects are in the background, seen from behind, their importance is much lower, due to focus, and that's why the tight crop of the man on the right is not a big problem IMO. Also, Basotxerri I don't understand your comment, which sounds like a support. Writing "I can live with the composition" means you find the composition acceptable, don't you ? Or is the composition so bad that you can't bear it ? Please be explicit. But despite the ambiguity, I've uploaded a new version with another crop, to reduce the empty surface and highlight the main subject. Hopefully better now -- Basile Morin 00:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
IMO 80% and visible compression isn't acceptable for a QIC. May be 95% may work, my recommendation is 100% - no compression. --XRay 07:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Just my 2 cents...Composition is as it should be! (From technical side young monk was catched with focus trap -perfect!) It´s NOT random and it´s not that what called snap in a bad way. Ok, the issues (PS-Work after development) left green spot downside looks like CA or jpeg bug. Background is maybee too sharp, or I miss more bokeh. Rightside - Monk´s Head in the middle (dodge), black spot makes no sense (stamp it out), two white ones with the first monk, too. - Total: A little bit PS Work and than it´s more then a really good image, it can be Q1, too (about colour, skin, hair, focus etc from the child monk) but needs old crop and bigger size-- Hans-Jürgen Neubert 08:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 21:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

File:White_puppy_suckling_a_pig.jpg

White puppy suckling a pig.jpg

  • Nomination White puppy suckling a pig in Laos --Basile Morin 14:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good quality. -- Ikan Kekek 19:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, JPEG artifacts and overexposed background. --XRay 12:28, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I pretty much ignored the background and rated the photo based on the subject, and I can see why you object to the bright light in the background. -- Ikan Kekek 11:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 13:53, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Carrara_marble_Gravestone.jpg

Carrara marble Gravestone.jpg

  • Nomination Carrara marble Gravestone - Cimitrul Corabia --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 15:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Random composition, overexposed, noisy sky, sorry --Moroder 10:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Bei allem Respekt, aber schon länger nichts unnützeres gelesen. Das image war für eine Band und sicher alles andere als zufällig. Es ist aus einer Serie von rund, einem Dutzend, die damalige Freundin hielt den externen Blitz, alleine Mischlicht ist schon kein snap, Spot noch weniger. Und entweder stimmt der Monitor nicht oder was anderes, das Orginal ist noch heller und kontrastreicher und hat immer noch mehr Zeichnung als Papierweiß. Es muss einem ja nicht gefallen, nur ist der Kommentar nicht nur falsch sondern schon sehr subjektiv. Aber damit kann es nicht so schlecht sein, es lost ja Emotionen aus. Der Kommentar ärgert mich nicht einmal, er entäuscht nur --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 22:12, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
    I disagree --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 21:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Beim flüchtigen Betrachten hätte ich gesagt "totgeblitzt" und aus die maus ;) Aber das stimmt hier nicht. Gut gesehen und umgesetzt, nette Idee. --Ralf Roletschek 22:41, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Moroder, and I added the "oppose" symbol for him, because he obviously declined. -- Ikan Kekek 07:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not really looking too closely at the background since the marble is the obvious subject, but I don't think this image has enough detail and sharpness so we can see the features of the marble clearly.--Peulle 11:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Danke Ralf! Mit Deinem Kommentar kann ich leben und es ist der einzige der sticht. Ist auch nicht so wichtig, das Bild hat Geld gebracht. Peulle hat auch Recht, nur hat schon jemand so einen alten Marmor gesehen? Krumm, unten faulig (fungus) oben ausgewaschen. Das war nie die Idee, es so aufzunehmen wie es ist, sondern was man als Fotograph sieht. Kurz, das Teil war für ein Cover und eine Rockband, ich hatte auch probiert das "Ding" von der anderen Seite "anzuleuchten" wäre mehr Eagles Hotel California gewesen, hätte halt nicht gepasst. Schade das bei QI so wenig Umsetzung einer Bildidee honoriert wird, auf den Auslöser drücken und den Belichtungsautomaten auf jpeg zu spielen scheint wichtiger. Ist ironischerweise nach den direkt geblitzen Pilzen sehr eindeutig, wie hier die Masse agiert. Leider auch nicht wirklich neu...
  • Hier geht es mehr um technische Qualität und nicht um künstlerische Gestaltung. Es ist halt so. Aber wie wäre es als FPC? Da könnte ich mir dein Bild sehr gut vorstellen. --XRay 20:16, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Werde ich mal probieren, wobei ich bei solchen Sachen gar nicht verstehe wie es ohne Technik und die damit verbundene Qualität geht??

Nun gut an den "Focus Swirl" traut sich auch keener ran:) Künstlerisch ist das für mich weniger (dafür ist es eben zu technisch), das ist ein Stil wie früher Reporter gearbeitet haben und unter Covers habe ich schon mehr "Freak Out" gemacht. Habe aktuell mehr das Thema im umgekehrten Fall, wenn Korrektur zwar stimmt, aber das ganze Bild wieder "verbogen" aussieht--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 10:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 16:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Pholiota aurivella 2017 G1.jpg

Pholiota aurivella 2017 G1.jpg

  • Nomination Golden Scalycap mushroom (1) -- George Chernilevsky 20:40, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 21:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Only a comment, maybee. IMO for me that´s not Quality. It´s overflashed. I like mixed lights and the result of colours, but here it´s really to much flash light. --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 20:45, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - QI for me. -- Ikan Kekek 06:41, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry George, but the hard shadows by direct flash kills it. A simple bouncer would help much. --Smial 10:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Hans-Jürgen and Smial. --Basotxerri 10:17, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality for me, --Tournasol7 19:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per smial --Trougnouf 10:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good composition, good colors, perhaps no FP but QI for me -- Spurzem 11:41, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharp enough but the flash destroyed it. Sorry. --RaboKarbakian 02:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → More votes?   --PumpkinSky 16:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Camel_market_at_Daraw,_photo_by_Hatem_Moushir_26.jpg

Camel market at Daraw, photo by Hatem Moushir 26.jpg

  • Nomination Camel market at Daraw --Hatem Moushir 04:18, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think this image could benefit from a slight perspective correction (+rotation, -vertical lens shift). Good but none of the subjects appear particularly sharp. --Trougnouf 12:03, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment perspective correction done --Hatem Moushir 21:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support PumpkinSky 16:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --PumpkinSky 16:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

File:Bamberg_Karmlitenkirche_Altar_927454136_-HDR.jpg

Bamberg Karmlitenkirche Altar 927454136 -HDR.jpg

  • Nomination Altar of the Carmelite Church in Bamberg --Ermell 07:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry not sharp enough and/or too noisy, especially the bottom part --Michielverbeek 07:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Michielverbeek: I agree with you and should have uploaded the new version before. Please have another look.--Ermell 22:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't think the new version is much better, a third opinion please --Michielverbeek 23:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - This file is huge and looks fine at 300% of my computer's full screen size. That's quite enough. -- Ikan Kekek 09:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't understand the rework. The first version seems more natural to me, closer to reality. Of course pixelpeepers may find (rather low) noise and it is not absolutely pixel-sharp. But regarding the high resolution both is tolerable. But some surfaces in the reworked version look partly like plastic and slightly oversharpened. --Smial 09:49, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Perhaps the colors of the first version were more natural, but this one is QI too. I see no problems with sharpness neither here nor there. -- Spurzem 11:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 17:57, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

木 07 12月 → 金 15 12月
金 08 12月 → 土 16 12月
土 09 12月 → 日 17 12月
日 10 12月 → 月 18 12月
月 11 12月 → 火 19 12月
火 12 12月 → 水 20 12月
水 13 12月 → 木 21 12月
木 14 12月 → 金 22 12月
金 15 12月 → 土 23 12月