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 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Outdated translations are marked like this.
Shortcut
COM:QIC
推薦一覧に移動
Other languages:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Bahasa Melayu • ‎Canadian English • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Nederlands • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎latviešu • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎čeština • ‎македонски • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎मैथिली • ‎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。 Additionally, if you just want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at Commons:Photography critiques.

Contents

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 January 23 2019 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.


Consensual review process

Consensual review is a catch all place used in the case the procedure described above is insufficient and needs discussion for more opinions to emerge.

How to ask for consensual review

To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day.

Please only send things to consensual review that have been reviewed as promoted/declined. If, as a reviewer, you can not make a decision, add your comments, but leave the candidate on this page.


Consensual review rules

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations

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

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 21:34, 23 1月 2019 (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.

add nomination below this line, inside the gallery tags, in the following form — new nominations

January 23, 2019

January 22, 2019

January 21, 2019

January 20, 2019

January 19, 2019

January 18, 2019

January 17, 2019

January 16, 2019

January 15, 2019

January 14, 2019

January 13, 2019

January 11, 2019

January 9, 2019

January 8, 2019

January 4, 2019

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:Saint_John_the_Evangelist_Cathedral_(Cleveland,_Ohio)_-_exterior.jpg

Saint John the Evangelist Cathedral (Cleveland, Ohio) - exterior.jpg

  • Nomination Saint John the Evangelist Cathedral (Cleveland, Ohio) --Nheyob 00:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quite nice but it's noisy, tilted, there are dust spots and the column from the traffic lights kills it for me --Podzemnik 08:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question - Podzemnik, you surely meant to oppose, no? -- Ikan Kekek 04:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Dust spots, not that sharp, some noise, problematic light. -- Ikan Kekek 18:32, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overprocessed, barrel distortion, dust. --Smial 13:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 11:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Theodore_Monod_-_Adrar_de_Mauritanie_-_Oued_Akerdil_-_Décembre_1998.jpg

Theodore Monod - Adrar de Mauritanie - Oued Akerdil - Décembre 1998.jpg

  • Nomination Théodore Monod, explorer and scientist (by Bruno Lecoquierre) --Groupir ! 14:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality for an analog pic. --Stepro 21:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Dust spots need to be digitally cleaned. -- Ikan Kekek 02:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think the level of sharpness is acceptable for 1998 standards, but some simple restoration like the one Ikan mentions should be applied.--Peulle 10:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Peulle --Fischer.H 18:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info: Some dustspots removed. Es gibt noch Einzelpixelfehler, die sieht man aber nur bei 400% Gruss --Nightflyer 20:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support now. Much better. -- Ikan Kekek 06:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Ermell 19:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 06:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Münster,_Domplatz,_Wochenmarkt_--_2019_--_2644.jpg

Münster, Domplatz, Wochenmarkt -- 2019 -- 2644.jpg

  • Nomination Market in Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 11:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Horst J. Meuter 12:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The title of the picture is called Markt in Münster. Therefore, the price tag of the goods should be sharply displayed. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 22:29, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I disagree. The price tag is readable and the garlic is nicely photographed. -- Ikan Kekek 02:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Maybe there are people somewhere in this world, who don't know garlic. Filename and description unsufficiant. --Smial 10:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ich hoffe Dietmar nimmt mir das nicht krumm, jedenfalls musste ich herzhaft lachen, wirklichǃ Die 105er-Brennweite ist eigentlich auch ein Makro (oder nicht?) und XRay "spielt" hier etwas mit ISO und Schärfeverlauf (für f10 irgendwie mehr als ungenügend), mehr noch mit seinem Status. Die Komposition ist so nachlässig, nachlässiger geht eigentlich nicht (sogar mit Tilt im grünem Gemüsekasten), man kann nicht einmal lesen, das es frischer Knoblauch ist...ergo alles eingebaut, was eigentlich nicht geht. So was hatten wir schon öfter, die unsägliche Anzahl an Reifen und Autos in Hallen, gerade letzte Woche mit den beiden (imho echt schlechten Bildern von Hellfreaks). Ergo, also ich nehm´s mit Humor, fühlte mich nur sehr kurz auf den Arm genommen, das ist ein umgedrehter "Dürer malt den Kreis"--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 10:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Nein, ich nehme nichts übel. Ein Makro ist die Linse allerdings nicht. --XRay 16:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support IMO reasonable use of shallow DoF. To me the price tag doesn't seem relevant. Yes, the description could talk about garlic. --Basotxerri 16:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Basotxerri--Ermell 11:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm always surprised which pictures are devalued because of the slightest defects in the image design and which, despite considerably disturbing elements, are regarded as a quality image. -- Spurzem 08:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Basotxerri 16:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Münster,_Domplatz,_Wochenmarkt_--_2019_--_2648.jpg

Münster, Domplatz, Wochenmarkt -- 2019 -- 2648.jpg

  • Nomination Market in Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 11:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quite narrow DoF but otherwise good --MB-one 12:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small DoF for this compositon. Please discuss -- Spurzem 22:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I think it's allowable artistic license. -- Ikan Kekek 02:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Neither filename nor description are meaningful. --Smial 10:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Description improved. Thank you. --XRay 20:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good for me; the low DOF gives an interesting effect here. --Aristeas 17:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Aristeas 17:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Münster,_Domplatz,_Wochenmarkt_--_2019_--_2649.jpg

Münster, Domplatz, Wochenmarkt -- 2019 -- 2649.jpg

  • Nomination Market in Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 11:16, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Horst J. Meuter 12:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The title for the picture is poorly chosen. For me, the beans (?) could be anywhere. In addition, especially the upper left part of the image is too blurred. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 22:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Not beans, brazil nuts. Description is better now. --XRay 20:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Since they're all the same kind of bean, what does it matter that some beans are blurred? -- Ikan Kekek 07:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Neither filename nor description are meaningful. --Smial 10:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Description improved. Thank you. --XRay 19:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Here (just in my POV) The Author is testing QI and especially the sense of discussion and quality of the members. Just like "Your are going nuts?" WB, random snap series, and tells the story of a drunken Commoner in the super-market....Sry, that´s german black humorǃ Beans?? Here we can see paranuts (brazil nuts) with to warm light .-) --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 10:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not testing. ;-) But I think that sometimes photographs with straight lines are boring. And especially for the market photographs: For some of the photographs I couldn't use a tripod. --XRay 20:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 08:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Rinocerontes_blancos_(Ceratotherium_simum),_Santuario_de_Rinocerontes_Khama,_Botsuana,_2018-08-02,_DD_05.jpg

Rinocerontes blancos (Ceratotherium simum), Santuario de Rinocerontes Khama, Botsuana, 2018-08-02, DD 05.jpg

  • Nomination White rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum), Khama Rhino Sanctuary, Botswana --Poco a poco 10:26, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Horst J. Meuter 12:00, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough IMO. --Ermell 17:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Very big file. Sharp enough, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 02:37, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I admit.--Ermell 08:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The head is out of focus. Also, there are purple chromatic aberration.--Peulle 10:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Sharp enough regarding the high resolution. If people here demand "always full resolution", they have to accept at some point that light optics has its physical limits. The CA is longitudial, which is not easy to remove. The lens has mediocrate bokeh. Composition and lighting are acceptable. I've seen much worse images here getting QI status. --Smial 10:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment ✓ New version with less CA Poco a poco 18:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Fischer.H 18:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Head of main subject is out of focus. --Shansov.net 23:17, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Plenty of pixels and nice composition, but the head should be focused, not the ass. Kallerna 11:17, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
    I don't see any ass here. --Poco a poco 20:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Ermell 08:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

File:The_flagellation_of_Christ_by_Jusepe_de_Ribera.jpg

The flagellation of Christ by Jusepe de Ribera.jpg

  • Nomination The flagellation of Christ by Jusepe de Ribera--Paris Orlando 08:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Light reflections and lack of sharpness in the upper part. --MB-one 12:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I disagree --Paris Orlando 14:39, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Can you please explain what you disagree with? -- Ikan Kekek 08:23, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
      • I don't tink is so terrible,thanks --Paris Orlando 09:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose So you don't disagree with any of the particulars. QIC is not supposed to be a measure of "not being so terrible". Photos designated Quality Images are supposed to be of good quality. I will oppose per MB-one. -- Ikan Kekek 09:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I would say that the reflection was not so annoying and that I do not think that the loss is so strong. Anyway ok thanks :) --Paris Orlando 10:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Artefacts.--Peulle 10:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Basotxerri 20:36, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Basilica_of_Sant'_Apollinare_Nuovo._Ravenna,_Italy.jpg

Basilica of Sant' Apollinare Nuovo. Ravenna, Italy.jpg

  • Nomination Basilica of Sant' Apollinare Nuovo. Ravenna, Italy --Ввласенко 07:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 08:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Seems tilted a bit --Podzemnik 08:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Basotxerri 20:35, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Charles_Arbuthnot_Crombie,_Sandgate_Cemetery.jpg

Charles Arbuthnot Crombie, Sandgate Cemetery.jpg

  • Nomination Charles Arbuthnot Crombie grave at Sandgate Cemetery. -- Adamdaley 06:44, 17 January 2019
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Bad composition (downwards view) resulting in perspective issues. --Uoaei1 09:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment it can be fixed? Adamdaley
    • ✓ Done Perspective Correction is done. -- Adamdaley 11:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Adamdaley: Could you please center the tombstone in the image (e.g. crop on the left)? --Basotxerri 09:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done -- Adamdaley 07:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Change to discuss since the perspective is corrected. --W.carter 12:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sharpness, lighting etc is ok. But, sorry, looks no more natural after perspective correction. For explanation please have a look at [1] --Smial 12:42, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me now. --Basotxerri 16:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Little more perspective correction. -- Adamdaley 06:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - With that last edit, you've satisfied me. -- Ikan Kekek 06:29, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Templo_Wat_Arun,_Bangkok,_Tailandia,_2013-08-22,_DD_08.jpg

Templo Wat Arun, Bangkok, Tailandia, 2013-08-22, DD 08.jpg

  • Nomination Wat Arun Temple, Bangkok, Thailand --Poco a poco 19:30, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ermell 20:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bottom crop --Charlesjsharp 23:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I dislike the crops, not only on the bottom but also the left and right, as they feel to me like they arbitrarily cut things. -- Ikan Kekek 17:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tight at the bottom, roomy at the top.--Peulle 20:04, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 17:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Angkor_Wat,_Camboya,_2013-08-16,_DD_097.JPG

Angkor Wat, Camboya, 2013-08-16, DD 097.JPG

  • Nomination Angkor Wat, Cambodia --Poco a poco 10:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 10:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose big spot top right and too dark --Charlesjsharp 23:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Charlesjsgarp--Fischer.H 15:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I don't know about "too dark", but the dark spot disqualifies this picture until it's removed. -- Ikan Kekek 09:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment ✓ Fixed Poco a poco 20:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I stand to be corrected, but it seems good enough now. -- Ikan Kekek 00:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Ikan Kekek 00:50, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

火 15 1月 → 水 23 1月
水 16 1月 → 木 24 1月
木 17 1月 → 金 25 1月
金 18 1月 → 土 26 1月
土 19 1月 → 日 27 1月
日 20 1月 → 月 28 1月
月 21 1月 → 火 29 1月
火 22 1月 → 水 30 1月
水 23 1月 → 木 31 1月