Commons:Кандидати за квалитетни слики

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 88% 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Outdated translations are marked like this.
Оди на предлози
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

Ова се кандидати за квалитетни слики. Имајте во превид дека ова не е исто што и избрани слики. Покрај ова, доколку сакате само да добиете мислење за вашите слики, поставете ги на страницата Фотографски критики.

Цел

Целта на квалитетните слики е да се даде поддршка на луѓето кои се темелот на Ризницата, поединечните корисници кои ставаат уникатни слики и со тоа ја прошируваат нашава збирка. Додека избраните слики ги истакнуваат апсолутно најдобрите слики на Ризницата, Квалитетните слики имаат за цел да ги поттикнат корисниците да се залагаат да ја обогатат Ризницата со квалитетни слики.
Покрај ова, квалитетните слики треба да бидат и надгледен материјал каде другите корисници ќе можат визуелно да ги видат методите за подобрување на нивните слики.

Напатствија

Сите предложени слики треба да бидат дело на корисници на Ризницата.

За предлагачите

Подолу се дадени општи напатствија за Квалитетни слики, а поподробни критериуми ќе најдете на страниицата Напатствија за слики.


Услови за страницата на сликата
  1. Статус на авторски права. Кандидатите за Квалитетни слики мора да се подигнати на Ризницата под соодветна лиценца. Целосен преглед на условите за лиценцирање ќе најдете на COM:CT.
  2. Сликите треба да се придржуваат на правилата и практиките на Ризницата, вклучувајќи го она за слики на препознатливи личности.
  3. Квалитетните слики треба да имаат содржајни имиња, да бидат соодветно категоризирани и да имаат точен опис на нивната страница на еден или повеќе јазици. Се препорачува да има и опис на англиски.
  4. На сликата не смее да има било какви реклами или потписи. Информациите за авторското право и творецот на сликата треба да стојат на нејзината страница (може да бидат и во метаподатоците), но не смеат да бидат на самата слика.


Создавач

Сликите мора да се дело на Викимедијанец за воопшто да се квалификуваат за статусот на квалитетна слика. Ова значи дека слики од места како Flickr немаат право на учество. (Избраните слики не подлежат на ова правило.)

Фотографските репродукции на дводимензионални уметнички дела направени од Викимедијанци се дозволени (и треба да се лиценцираат со „PD-old“ според правилата на Ризницата).

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.

Технички услови

Повеќе за овие кротериуми на Commons:Напатствија за слики.


Resolution

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.


Квалитет на сликите

Дигиталните слики знаат да страдаат од разни проблеми кои произгледуваат од правењето на сликата и нејзината обработка, како на пример шум, проблеми со JPEG компресија, недостиг на информации во сенливи или светли делови, или проблеми со доловувањето на боите. Треба да се внимава на сите овие нешта.


Композиција и осветлување

Распоредот на субјектот во рамките на сликата треба да прдоинесува кон истата. Предметите во преден и заден план не смеат да пречат. осветлувањето и фокусот исто така имаат свој удел во конечниот резултат; субјектот треба да биде остар, јасен и добро осветлен.


Значење

Нашата главна цел е да поттикнеме придонесување на квалитетни слики на Ризницата, кои се од големо значење за проектите на Викимедија.


Како да номинирате

Едноставно додајте ред од овој облик на врвот од делот за номинации на страницата Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

File:ИмеНаСликаОвде.jpg|{{/Nomination|1=Многу краток опис  --~~~~ |2=}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

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.


Number of nominations

Carefully select your best images to nominate. No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.


Проценка на слики

Секој регистриран корисник може да оценува предлози.
При проценувањето на слики, оценувачот мора да ги има на ум истите напатствија како и предлагачот.


Како да оценувате

Како да го подновите статусот

Оценувајте ја секоја слика внимателно. Отворете ја во полна резолуција, и проверете дали ги задоволува критериумите за квалитет.

  • Ако решите да го поддржите предлогот, променете го релевантниот ред од
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Многу краток опис --~~~~ | }}

кон

File:ИмеНаСликаОвде.jpg|{{/Promotion|Многу краток опис --Потпис на предлагачот |Зошто ви се допадна. --~~~~}}

Со други зборови, сменете го шаблонот од /Nomination на /Promotion и ставете свој потпис, и по можност, краток коментар.

  • Ако решите да ја одбиете номинацијата, променете го релевантниот ред од
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Многу краток опис --~~~~ | }}

кон

File:ИмеНаСликаОвде.jpg|{{/Decline|Многу краток опис --Потпис на предлагачот|Зошто не ви се допадна. --~~~~}}

Со други зборови, сменете го шаблонот од /Nomination на /Decline и ставете свој потпис, и по можност, да изјавите кој критериум сликата не го задоволува (можете да користите наслови од заглавјата во напатствијата). Ако сликата има многу проблеми, тогаш споменете само 2 до 3 најголеми проблема, или пак додајте multiple problems. Кога одбивате еден предлог морате да објасните причините на страницата за разговор на предлагачот - како правило, бидете фини и охрабрувачки! Во оваа порака треба да понудите поподробно објаснување на причините за вашетоодбивање на сликата.

Напомена: Оценувајте ги прво најстарите слики.


Период на мирување и унапредување

Доколку нема примедби во рок од 2 дена (точно: 48 часа) по оценувањето, сликата станува унапредена (избрана) или неуспешна, според добиените оценки. Ако имате примедба, само променете го статусот на Discuss и сликата ќе биде преместена во делот наречен Consensual review (Оценка по договор).


Како да донесете одлука

QICbot автоматски го средува ова 2 дена по донесувањето на одлуката, и избраните слики се складираат во Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted во исчекување на категоризација пред автоматски да се внесат во соодветните страници за Квалитетни слики.

Ако сметате дека сте пронашле исклучително добра слика достојна за статусот Избрана слика, тогаш предложете ја и на Кандидати за избрана слика.

  • Сликите во исчекување на оценување ја означуваат номинацијата со сино.
  • Сликите кои ги оценувачот ги прифатил ја означуваат номинацијата со зелено
  • Сликите кои ги оценувачот ги отфрлил ја означуваат номинацијата со зелено


Неоценети слики (номинација со сино)

Номинираните (предложените) слики кои не побудиле интерес за нивно оценување (било позитивно или негативно), или договор (еднаков број на негативни оценки колку и позитивни во договорниот процес) треба да се отстранат од страницата по 8 дена, да се архивираат во Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives August 22 2017 и на сликата да ѝ се додаде Category:Unassessed QI candidates.


Процес на оценување по договор

Оценувањето по договор (consensual review) е процес кој се применува во случаи каде горенаведената процедура не е доволна бара повеќе расправи и мислења.

Како да побарате оценување по договор

Ако сакате да побарате оценување по договор (consensual review), само променете го текстот /Promotion, /Decline во /Discuss и додајте го вашиот коментар веднаш под оценките. Потоа за еден ден автоматски бот ќе го премести ова во делот за оценување по договор.

Испраќајте слики за оценување по договор само слики кои веќе се поддржани/одбиени. Доколку, како оценувал, не можете да донесете одлука, тогаш додајте го својот коментар, но оставете го кандидатот на оваа страница.


Правила за оценување по договор

Видете Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Превчитување на страницата: 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]] 17:17, 22 август 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

August 22, 2017

August 21, 2017

August 20, 2017

August 19, 2017

August 18, 2017

August 17, 2017

August 16, 2017

August 15, 2017

August 14, 2017

August 13, 2017

August 12, 2017

August 10, 2017

August 9, 2017

August 8, 2017

August 6, 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:Aglais urticae above Lai Grond, Surses, Switzerland 3.jpg

Aglais urticae above Lai Grond, Surses, Switzerland 3.jpg

  • Предлог Aglais urticae photographed in the mountains of Switzerland --Capricorn4049 19:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Расправа
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMO the main subject (the butterflies) isn't sharp enough. BTW, the image is tilted. However, the idea for the image composition is quite good. --Basotxerri 10:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. --Yann 08:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Basotxerry, please compare with the image below ;-) --Moroder 06:22, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Basotxerri. Really good composition, but not sharp enough. -- Ikan Kekek 08:48, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:55, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Völs_am_Schlern_Kalter_Keller_Höfeweg_Tafel.jpg

Völs am Schlern Kalter Keller Höfeweg Tafel.jpg

  • Предлог Cellar with natural ventilation on the Höfeweg (farmhouse trail) in Völs am Schlern, South Tyrol. --Moroder 12:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Расправа
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The curse of woodland shots... There are overexposed areas, I doubt that they can be fixed reasonably but please try. --Basotxerri 09:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've already done my best. These areas are inevitable but imho not relevant for the quality of the image --Moroder 17:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but IMO it's important. However, feel free to move this to CR. --Basotxerri 06:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I disagree --Moroder 15:11, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, while I understand the problems in such a photo, there are at least 2 significantly burned areas. PumpkinSky 21:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --PumpkinSky 21:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Völs_am_Schlern_Kalter_Keller_Höfeweg.jpg

Völs am Schlern Kalter Keller Höfeweg.jpg

  • Предлог Cellar with natural ventilation on the farmhouse trail in Völs am Schlern, South Tyrol. --Moroder 06:55, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Расправа
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please try to fix the overexposed highlight in this one, too, but it's possible that it can't be fixed. --Basotxerri 09:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've already done my best. These areas are inevitable but imho not relevant for the quality of the image --Moroder 17:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSorry but IMO it's important. However, feel free to move this to CR. --Basotxerri 06:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You might like to crop the photo so that it shows the cellar and sufficient woodland to illustrate the context of the ruin and then submit it as "Valued image" where the photo quality requirements are lower, but the originality and assocaited comments are higher that for a QI. -- Martinvl 10:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for you comment but I'd like to show the natural environment of the cellar which is important and I'll post some other more detailed pictures of the structure --Moroder 06:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good for me. I think it is the impression which I had when walking at a sunny day in this wood. -- Spurzem 08:26, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good for me too. Taking a lot of outdoor photos myself, I understand the difficulty in such a photo.PumpkinSky 21:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I understand what you mean but in these cirunstances you've got to use HDR because the dynamic range of your camera simply can't get it. If we shoot a photo at 1/5 s and it's get motion-blurred, we don't argue that it was dark either and there was no other way to take it, do we? Sorry, only my opinion. --Basotxerri 15:24, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You are right but I don#t like HDR for the colour distortions and to tell you the truth I'm not very familiar with HDR. My point in this foto is that the overexposed parts are irrelevant, this can be accepted and not be accepted. Thanks for the discussion. Gut Licht! --Moroder 16:52, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --PumpkinSky 21:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Υάμεια 1892.jpg

Υάμεια 1892.jpg

  • Предлог View of Yamia, Greece. --C messier 13:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Расправа
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, not sharp enough and too noisy for me --Michielverbeek 22:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I guess it may be heat haze, but IMHO the sharpness is acceptable. More opinions please. --C messier 13:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Michiel. The foreground is focused and the village is not. -- Ikan Kekek 03:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per C messier. It´s ok for QI --Milseburg (talk) 11:58, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 11:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Crabronidae 1215.jpg

Crabronidae 1215.jpg

  • Предлог Crabronidae , at Madayipara --Vengolis 01:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Одбиено
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --PumpkinSky 02:13, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too small and soft for me. Charlesjsharp 21:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - This is close to the line, but my judgment falls just under the line for QI. -- Ikan Kekek 10:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Peulle 11:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Piz Forbesch Panorama, extrem Hochauflösend und beschriftet.png

Piz Forbesch Panorama, extrem Hochauflösend und beschriftet.png

  • Предлог High-resolution panorama from Piz Forbesch (Switzerland) with labels --Capricorn4049 19:00, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Расправа Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Interesting and certainly lots of work went into this. The photo quality itself is quite high, but I would suggest some changes to increase the file's usability: 1) store it as a high-quality .JPG or .PNG instead of a .TIFF to decrease the file size while retaining the quality, and 2) don't use those drawn-on lines and names to point to the different mountain tops, instead use the Commons built-in "add a note" function in order to identify the mountains while not disturbing the actual image with text.--Peulle 21:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose 1) it is way below the minimum required size and 2) its height is so small it's hard to even tell what's in the photo. PumpkinSky 22:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
      • Striking my oppose since I'm in unfamiliar turf here. PumpkinSky 18:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ahem... I beg to differ. The file is actually 96,850 X 2,435 pixels equals 235.83Mpx. But it is in TIFF format which means it doesn't display in a normal fashion in the viewer. You are only looking at the JPEG preview. But there are other issues that might need to be addressed here so I think a CR is in order. --W.carter 23:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I admit I'm TIFF-ignorant, so what viewer does show the whole file?PumpkinSky 01:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • You click on "Original file" below the image. Most browsers will then give you a message "Do you want to upload this file" at the bottom of your screen and it can then be opened in some photo processing program on your computer. TIFF files are large and not so easy to handle, so maybe not the best choice for this site. In that respect (only) they resemble raw files. --cart-Talk 08:22, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • ✓ DoneThe photo is now a .PNG--Capricorn4049 01:57, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Have you given any thought to the idea of changing the labels from something drawn onto the actual photo into using the Commons notes?--Peulle 13:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The Commons built-in "add a note" function doesn't work for this panorama because you don't see the picture in the image page and you dont see the notes in a zommed version of the picture.--Capricorn4049 20:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Very instructive but also unwieldy. The normal common notes don´t work in such formats. I think it´s ok to integrate them permanently in the image. I know how much work this is. But I think the labels are too dominant here. A smaller font size would be equally instructive. Futher more I think, the shooting conditions were too hazy for a really good instruktive panorama. Transitions between frames are visible in the sky. You´ve got much better panoramas in your portfolio. Sorry, Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose no QI for me. --Milseburg (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose PNG and too narrow --Ralf Roletschek 11:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support High quality and very interesting. Lines are much better than notes in this case. Yann 08:19, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 10:25, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Fetzima 2.jpg

Fetzima 2.jpg

  • Предлог Levomilnacipran Capsules --Sixflashphoto 01:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Расправа
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 05:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree, the light is bad, not enough detail, the grains are blurred together, chromatic aberration on the letters. At least some focus stacking could be done for such a studio photo. --W.carter 16:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too shallow DoF I think.--Peulle 13:12, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think the main problem here is that it's very dark over-all, given that this is supposed to be a white background. Easy to fix in post, though. --El Grafo 15:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Image is not sharp, making it brighter won't help. --Shansov.net 03:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --W.carter 08:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Fetzima 1.jpg

Fetzima 1.jpg

  • Предлог Levomilnacipran Bottle --Sixflashphoto 01:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Расправа
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 05:21, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dull/insufficient light, not sharp enough, the grains are blurred together and the crop could be more centered. At least some focus stacking could be done for such a studio photo. --W.carter 16:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Let's agree to disagree on the crop and the light. My goal was to have no shadows ending up with Dull light. I don't know what you mean by insufficient light since any more (adding a third flash even diffused) I found washed it out. I also preferred the crop this way. The grains are just hard to shoot here, white on white background. With the photo of just the capsules I agree focus stacking could help but I'm not getting good results here in tests. Sixflashphoto (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is actually dark. Highlights on the bottle are just ~180/256 or 70% white - far from being washed out. This is easy to fix in any RAW developer, but sadly this image is also not very sharp. You can make it brighter and it will be a great illustration for Wikipedia articles or something else, just not a QI yet. --Shansov.net 03:34, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per W.carter --Cvmontuy 08:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Like above, I think the main problem here is that it's very dark over-all, given that this is supposed to be a white bottle & background. Easy to fix in post, though. --El Grafo 15:09, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --W.carter 08:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Dunblane_Cathedral_interior_2017.jpg

Dunblane Cathedral interior 2017.jpg

  • Предлог Dunblane Cathedral interior --DeFacto 19:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Одбиено
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good Quality. Suggest you put this up at FPC. PumpkinSky 00:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The NR is very strong and there are some weird artifacts at the ceiling. --C messier 12:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Oh my Dog --Livioandronico2013 11:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Heavily overprocessed.--Peulle 21:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per C messier. --W.carter 08:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sharp and especially not so distorted as many other images of this kind. -- Spurzem 14:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per others. The ceiling looks really weird. -- Ikan Kekek 10:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Peulle 12:00, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

File:INS_Tabar_(F44).jpg

INS Tabar (F44).jpg

  • Предлог INS Tabar in action. By User:Aswin Krishna Poyil --Suyash.dwivedi 18:54, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Расправа
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good Quality. PumpkinSky 00:12, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Horizon tilted, dust spots seen even in the preview. Also it is a bit noisy and unsharp. --C messier 12:28, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with C Messier. Given the conditions, this is an either/or shot; if this had been of good technical quality, it would without doubt have been an FP, possibly even a POTY candidate.--Peulle 21:53, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • FYI, all FPs are POTY candidates. Some of these later becomes POTY finalists. --W.carter 08:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, that's what I meant. :) Seriously, look at the subject and the movement; if this had been of good quality, I think we'd be talking about one of the very best images on Commons.--Peulle 13:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per C messier plus there is chromatic noise all over the photo. --W.carter 08:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would support this if the horizon and dust spots are fixed. Yann 08:15, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --W.carter 08:30, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Madonna_santa_maria_ausiliatrice.JPG

Madonna santa maria ausiliatrice.JPG

  • Предлог Madonna santa maria ausiliatrice --Livioandronico2013 18:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Поддршка
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Could you please give a more precise declaration for the not so sophisticated viewers? As well here as in the image declaration. --PtrQs 22:30, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, so rather plain and simple: my problem is, that only few people would know where that statue stands and what it wants to show. So a geographical hint like [Brescello] and maybe a general (english) explanation of 'ausiliatrice' would be helpful. --PtrQs 00:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • And why should I? If you're so curious you can see the category or where the photo is used .... it's not vicious about QI... --Livioandronico2013 19:42, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality for me. But the place should be added in the description. -- Spurzem 21:37, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose What is so difficult in adding some place and description? I'd like to have this discussed, just the name of the statue does not fulfill the QI-request 'short description'. And btw: the description of the file itself is by no means more detailed .. --PtrQs 15:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support While I certainly agree that the description could be more ... (ahem) descriptive, i.e. speak more clearly what the image contains, the categorization and geolocation also contribute to the matter.--Peulle 13:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I think an accurate description would be "Statue of the Madonna on the roof of the church of Santa Maria Ausiliatrice in Rome". But really, Livio, you could always give such a description in Italian and anyone could translate it. The photo is certainly a QI, but why not include a more complete description like the one I just typed (if it's accurate)? -- Ikan Kekek 04:20, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Peulle 12:01, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Former Consular Palace 04.jpg

Former Consular Palace 04.jpg

  • Предлог Former Consular Palace in Pézenas, Hérault, France. --Tournasol7 14:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Расправа
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Top part of the building is unsharp maybe overprocessed --Cvmontuy 16:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The top left side loses sharpness, but the building is sharp enough, more opinions please. --C messier 12:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose While the top of the building is warped, that alone might not have been enough to stop me from supporting. However, I also find that car on the left to be a bit disturbing. The two things together are enough for me to oppose this one.--Peulle 08:58, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --W.carter 08:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Silverline 8975.jpg

Silverline 8975.jpg

  • Предлог Cigaritis vulcanus --Vengolis 00:43, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Расправа
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 07:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Little definition in this small file. Charlesjsharp 22:18, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Seems adequate to me; it's clear though not super-detailed, as it's not a super-closeup. Also not a small file (~6 MP), though the butterfly is kind of small in the file. -- Ikan Kekek 08:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As per Charles Deepugn (talk) 12:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - good enough for QI. PumpkinSky 22:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann 08:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Yann 08:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

File:Crimson-marsh-glider-head.jpg

Crimson-marsh-glider-head.jpg

  • Предлог Crimson marsh glider, head shot --Deepugn 02:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Расправа
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --XRay 04:57, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not a QI for me. Please discuss --Vengolis 15:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - It's a QI because of the great detail in the head. If it's necessary to satisfy everyone that the subject was depicted adequately, Deepugn could rename the file "Crimson-marsh-glider-head (etc.)". -- Ikan Kekek 08:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not QI for me. Charlesjsharp 20:55, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not QI for me too...sorry --Livioandronico2013 11:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think this is a QI --Rabax63 16:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Yann 08:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I've looked at this a couple of times now and ending up on the supporting side. Not an FP, but good enough for QI, methinks.--Peulle 08:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Yann 08:11, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


Распоред (ден 8-ми по номинацијата)

пон 14 авг → вто 22 авг
вто 15 авг → сре 23 авг
сре 16 авг → чет 24 авг
чет 17 авг → пет 25 авг
пет 18 авг → саб 26 авг
саб 19 авг → нед 27 авг
нед 20 авг → пон 28 авг
пон 21 авг → вто 29 авг
вто 22 авг → сре 30 авг