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Outdated translations are marked like this.
Shortcut
COM:QIC
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.

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 April 21 2018 and Category:Unassessed QI candidates added to the image.


Consensual review process

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

How to ask for consensual review

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

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


Consensual review rules

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: purge this page's cache

Nominations

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

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 08:24, 21 4月 2018 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC).
  • Please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first, many are still unassessed.
Thank you.

April 21, 2018

April 20, 2018

April 19, 2018

April 18, 2018

April 17, 2018

April 16, 2018

April 15, 2018

April 14, 2018

April 13, 2018

April 12, 2018

April 11, 2018

April 10, 2018

April 7, 2018

Consensual review

Rules

These rules are in accordance with the procedures normally followed in this section. If you don’t agree with them please feel free to propose changes.

  • To ask for consensual review, just change the /Promotion, /Decline to /Discuss and add your comments immediately following the review. An automatic bot will move it to the consensual review section within one day. Alternatively move the image line from the main queue to Consensual Review/Images and follow the instructions in the edit window.
  • You can move an image here if you contest the decision of the reviewer or have doubts about its eligibility (in which case an 'oppose' is assumed). In any case, please explain your reasons. Our QICBot will move it for you. When the bot moves it, you might have to revisit the nomination and expand your review into the Consensual Review format and add "votes".
  • The decision is taken by majority of opinions, including the one of the first reviewer and excluding the nominator's. After a minimum period of 48 hours since the last entry, the decision will be registered at the end of the text using the template {{QICresult}} and then executed, according to the Guidelines.
Using {{support}} or {{oppose}} will make it easier to count your vote.
Votes by anonymous contributors aren't counted
  • In case of draw, or if no additional opinions are given other than the first reviewer's, the nomination can be closed as inconclusive after 8 days, counted from its entry.
  • Turn any existing comments into bullet points—add Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose and Symbol support vote.svg  Support if necessary.
  • Add a comment explaining why you've moved the image here - be careful to stay inside the braces.
  • Preview and save with a sensible edit summary like "+Image:Example.jpg".


Consensual Review

File:Wolf Creek valley, Ivvavik National Park, YT.jpg

Wolf Creek valley, Ivvavik National Park, YT.jpg

  • Nomination Looking up the valley of Wolf Creek, one of the Firth River tributaries in Canada's Ivvavik National Park --Daniel Case 05:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good quality. --XRay 05:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose I´m not totally convinced. In my eyes the colors are too saturated. Are the trees really tilted at the same angle or is the picture tilted to the left? --Milseburg 19:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • First, as I've said about a lot of these other pictures from the Canadian Arctic, it was the "day" after a rainstorm and the sky was extremely clear and clean, so yes it was that blue. As for the trees, they tend to be rather scraggly on the tundra and tilt every which way. Daniel Case 04:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Kein QI für mich - Blaustich --Fischer.H 11:51, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 16:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Warnschild an einem Autobahnparkplatz in Baden-Würtemberg bei Bickelberg 02.jpg

Warnschild an einem Autobahnparkplatz in Baden-Würtemberg bei Bickelberg 02.jpg

  • Nomination Multilingual warning sign in Germany because of the african swine fever --Verum 13:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose The composition isn't quite good enough for QI, I feel. There's a cropped sign at the top, for instance. --Peulle 14:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Peulle:new v ersion with smaller crop. look at the text of the sign with the opeb trash container --Verum 08:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support QI for me --Ermell 20:33, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri 16:31, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Catedral_de_Oporto,_Portugal,_2012-05-09,_DD_16.JPG

Catedral de Oporto, Portugal, 2012-05-09, DD 16.JPG

  • Nomination Cathedral of Porto, Portugal --Poco a poco 18:58, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Light too harsh --Daniel Case 19:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I see no problem with the light here, I'd like to discuss this one. --Poco a poco 17:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support It's OK for me. --Bgag 15:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support OK for me, although a local correction would make it better. --Basotxerri 16:30, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
    Basotxerri: what do you mean by "local correction"? Poco a poco 19:14, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Lowering the highlights locally using the adjustment brush (talking in Lightroom terms). --Basotxerri 07:56, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Nothing wrong with it.--Ermell 20:36, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support - Maybe it's a bit bright in some places, but that's not a reason to deny that it's a photo of quality, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 22:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 22:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Zebu_near_Gondar.jpg

Zebu near Gondar.jpg

  • Nomination A zebu on the road between Gondar and Debarq, Ethiopia --Bgag 03:35, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose not for me. Charlesjsharp 07:27, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg  Support Interesting motif, sharp enough. --Palauenc05 16:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC).
    Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good quality IMO. --PJDespa 06:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support per Palauenc05. -- Ikan Kekek 07:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support per Palauenc05. -- DerFussi 12:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --DerFussi 12:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

File:2016_Rangun,_Oddział-3_Banku_Ekonomicznego_Mjanmy_(01).jpg

2016 Rangun, Oddział-3 Banku Ekonomicznego Mjanmy (01).jpg

  • Nomination Myanma Economic Bank Branch-3. Yangon, Myanmar. --Halavar 15:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Nice angle, but too unsharpSymbol support vote.svg  Support Better --Daniel Case 19:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓  Done New, fixed version uploaded right now with improved sharpness level. --Halavar 19:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good enough. Hint: You shouldn't set the polarizer always to maximum effect. Intense colours and deep blue sky are nice, but sometimes look somewhat unnatural, esp. in wide angle shots. --Smial 08:03, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Basotxerri 16:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

File:2012_Powiat_cieszyński,_Marklowice_Górne,_Tablica_wjazdu_do_miasta_Jastrzębie-Zdrój.jpg

2012 Powiat cieszyński, Marklowice Górne, Tablica wjazdu do miasta Jastrzębie-Zdrój.jpg

  • Nomination Entry sign to the Jastrzębie-Zdrój city. Marklowice Górne, Silesian Voivodeship, Poland. --Halavar 11:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 15:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Sky is oversaturated OK Symbol support vote.svg  weak support ; it still looks awfully blue but not unnnaturally so. --Daniel Case 19:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓  Done New better version uploaded right now. Please take a look again. --Halavar 08:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Basotxerri 16:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

File:2012_Jastrzębie-Zdrój,_Kaplica_na_ulicy_Szybowej_(01).jpg

2012 Jastrzębie-Zdrój, Kaplica na ulicy Szybowej (01).jpg

  • Nomination Chapel on Szybowa Street. Jastrzębie-Zdrój, Silesian Voivodeship, Poland. --Halavar 11:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good quality. --GT1976 12:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment This is not a good picture. See sky and leaves. I do not even understand that it is proposed, but I will not decline, on the same day, three photos of the same author--Lmbuga 21:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Sky and leaves are not important. --Halavar 22:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • You're right: Not important for an image other than QI IMO, I'm sorry Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose --Lmbuga 00:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose per Lmbuga. -- Ikan Kekek 06:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose per others.--Ermell 06:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose per Lmbuga. Also distracting fill-in flash with reflections. --Smial 13:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 17:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

File:2012_Jastrzębie-Zdrój,_Miejsce_pamięci_żołnierzy_Armii_Czerwonej_i_Czechosłowackiej_poległych_w_1945_roku_(02).jpg

2012 Jastrzębie-Zdrój, Miejsce pamięci żołnierzy Armii Czerwonej i Czechosłowackiej poległych w 1945 roku (02).jpg

  • Nomination Memorial of Red Army and Czechoslovakia soldiers who died in 1945. Jastrzębie-Zdrój, Silesian Voivodeship, Poland. --Halavar 11:40, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good quality. --GT1976 12:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • {{o}} Sorry, see notes. I think the image is not easily improved. Strong chromatic aberrations (head). Pour detail (head). In my opinion, too tight at top--Lmbuga 21:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓  Done New fixed version uploaded now. Please take a look again. --Halavar 21:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Deleted notes about CAs. Much better, but the detail (head) is not good IMO to be QI, sorry. And too tight at top (composition) --Lmbuga 22:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support - Good and detailed enough, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 06:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support OK for me. --Basotxerri 17:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good enough -- DerFussi 19:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Weak support --Lmbuga 21:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --DerFussi 19:02, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Canon_PowerShot_S45_-_main_board-4833.jpg

Canon PowerShot S45 - main board-4833.jpg

  • Nomination Canon PowerShot S45 - main board. By User:Raymond --Achim Raschka 04:51, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion Symbol support vote.svg  Support OK --Verum 18:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Dust spots (see notes). Perhaps overexposed or poor detail IMO--Lmbuga 00:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support - Looks good to me. The dust spots I'm seeing would seem to actually be in the picture, not the lens, and they're tiny. -- Ikan Kekek 06:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Ikan Kekek: Thanks for your review. I have cleaned up the dust spots. Raymond 06:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good sharpness and very informative. Although I'd suggest somewhat less contrast, and somewhat reduced exposure, to reduce the burnt spots at the solder points. I know, this is not a simple task ;-) --Smial 10:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Verum 12:12, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

File:BijouEgyptien MHNT.ETH.2012.24.27.jpg

BijouEgyptien MHNT.ETH.2012.24.27.jpg

  • Nomination Wide, finely decorated bracelet --Ercé 08:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose The work on the borders between the background and the objects has not been successful. --Peulle 09:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Looks OK to me. Charlesjsharp 13:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Per Peulle. --Basotxerri 17:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose per Peule. PS CS6 that you have used should have the "refine edges" feature, maybe you can give it another try? -- DerFussi 17:50, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment I added some notes in case people can't see what I mean. I'm all for creating a unicoloured background in images such as these, but it has to be done right.--Peulle 10:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 17:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Building_in_Avenida_Paulista,_Brazil_2.jpg

Building in Avenida Paulista, Brazil 2.jpg

  • Nomination Paulista 867, Comendador Yerchanik Kissajikian, Banco Mercantil and São Miguel Buildings, Avenida Paulista, São Paulo --The Photographer 02:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Please check the verticals.--Ermell 06:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
    ✓  Done Ermell Thanks. --The Photographer 17:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose I am not really convinced. Hard to tell which one of the buildings is vertical and which not. There are also many disturbing artefacts. --Ermell 19:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • The Comendador Yerchanik Kissajikian buildings in the Paulista Avenue are not architectonically verticals, the front face was designed to look like it was falling forward. --The Photographer 23:09, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Moderate Symbol support vote.svg  Support per photographer's explanation. Might be a bit sharper, but IMO a QI. -- Ikan Kekek 06:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good enough. --Smial 10:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg  Support -- DerFussi 18:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --DerFussi 18:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Black_heron_(Egretta_ardesiaca).jpg

Black heron (Egretta ardesiaca).jpg

  • Nomination Black heron (Egretta ardesiaca), Botswana --Charlesjsharp 14:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Weak support Could have been sharper.--Famberhorst 15:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Blurry, sorry (see head). QI is much more IMO. Foreground is disturbing (see note)--Lmbuga 23:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Per User:Lmbuga. Sorry, but I must agree. Not a QI --Halavar 10:56, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 17:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Inge Keller - Dorotheenstädtischer Friedhof - Mutter Erde fec.JPG

Inge Keller - Dorotheenstädtischer Friedhof - Mutter Erde fec.JPG

  • Nomination Grave of German actress Inge Keller in Dorotheenstadt cemetery --Mutter Erde 09:24, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Small photo, but not too small. Stronger colours would have ben an improvement. Qualuity high enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 07:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Poor proposal when taking the image. It's distorted (It needs perspective correction). Not QI IMO--Lmbuga 23:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support - Seems good enough to me. -- Ikan Kekek 06:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Needs perspective correction. --Basotxerri 17:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support I disagree, a perspective correction of the base would distort the sculpture excessive and look strange. Its ok as it is. -- DerFussi 17:46, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri 17:30, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

File:Teatro_Don_Pedro_V,_Macao,_2013-08-08,_DD_01.jpg

Teatro Don Pedro V, Macao, 2013-08-08, DD 01.jpg

  • Nomination Dom Pedro V Theater, Macau --Poco a poco 07:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Strong purple fringes and I don't like the way perspctive distortion is handled and the blurring that comes with it.--Tobias "ToMar" Maier 15:15, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support OK for me. --Basotxerri 16:17, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Strong perspective correction. Excessive perspective correction. Unnatural image--Lmbuga 23:42, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support - Good enough quality, perspective OK to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek 07:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose - Took me long time to decide.... but at the end per Lmbuga. It looks too unnatural due to the excessive perspective correction. -- DerFussi 17:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg  Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose per others.--Peulle 10:47, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri 17:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

金 13 4月 → 土 21 4月
土 14 4月 → 日 22 4月
日 15 4月 → 月 23 4月
月 16 4月 → 火 24 4月
火 17 4月 → 水 25 4月
水 18 4月 → 木 26 4月
木 19 4月 → 金 27 4月
金 20 4月 → 土 28 4月
土 21 4月 → 日 29 4月