Commons:Kandydatury do grafik wysokiej jakości

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 41% 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Outdated translations are marked like this.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
Przejdź do nominacji
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Canadian English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎Bahasa Indonesia • ‎日本語 • ‎latviešu • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎Bahasa Melayu • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎中文
float

Na tej stronie znajdują się kandydatury do grafik wysokiej jakości. Proszę nie mylić grafik wysokiej jakości z grafikami na medal. Additionally, if you just want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at Commons:Photography critiques.

Cel

The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. 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.

Wytyczne

Wszystkie nominowane zdjęcia muszą być stworzone przez jednego z użytkowników Wikimedia Commons.

Dla nominujących

Poniżej znajdują się ogólne wytyczne dotyczące jakości zdjęcia, bardziej szczegółowe kryteria dostępny w linku Image guidelines (en).


Wymagania co do strony
  1. Prawa autorskie. Grafika wysokiej jakości musi być przesłana do Commons pod właściwą licencją. Pełne wymagania co do licencji dostępne są na stronie oznaczenia licencji.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Grafika wysokiej jakości powinna mieć wyrazistą nazwę, być odpowiednio skategoryzowana oraz mieć na stronie pliku opis w jednym lub więcej językach. Mile widziany, ale nie obowiązkowy, jest opis w języku angielskim.
  4. Grafika nie może zawierać reklam ani podpisów autora. Informacja o prawach autorskich i twórcy zawiera się na stronie opisu grafiki. Może także znaleźć się w metadanych pliku. Nie powinna jednak zawierać się w treści grafiki.


Twórca

Zdjęcia muszą być utworzone przez jednego z użytkowników Wikimedia Commons. Oznacza, to że zdjęcia z serwisów takich jak Flickr nie będą mogły uzyskać statusu grafiki wysokiej jakości (w przypadku grafik na medal nie ma takiego ograniczenia). 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.

Wymagania techniczne

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.


Rozdzielczość

Obrazy rastrowe (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) muszą mieć rozdzielczość przynajmniej 2 Mpx. Oceniający mogą zwrócić się do autora o plik w większej rozdzielczości, jeśli obiekt na zdjęciu może być względnie łatwo sfotografowany ponownie. Wymóg ten wynika z tego, że grafiki z Commons mogą być drukowane, oglądanie na monitorach o wysokiej rozdzielczości lub wykorzystywane w inny sposób.


Wysoka jakość

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.


Kompozycja i oświetlenie

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.


Wartość

Our main goal is to encourage quality images being contributed to Wikicommons, valuable for Wikimedia and other projects.


Jak nominować

Simply add a line of this form at the top of Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list Nominations section

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Bardzo krótki opis  --~~~~ |}}

Opis powinien być nie dłuższy niż kilka słów. Prosimy pozostawić pustą linię pomiędzy twoją a poprzednią nominacją.

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]]) --~~~~ |}}

Informacja: istnieje gadżet, QInominator, ułatwiający nominowanie grafik. 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.


Liczba nominacji

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


Ocenianie grafik

Każdy zarejestrowany użytkownik może recenzować grafiki
When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.


Jak oceniać?

Jak zaktualizować status

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you liked it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

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.


Grace period and promotion

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.


Jak wykonać decyzję

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


Nieocenione zdjęcia (nominacja zakreślona na niebiesko)

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 July 22 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.


Zasady dyskusji

Zobacz Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Rules

Odśwież stronę: 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]] 22:56, 22 lipiec 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.

July 22, 2018

July 21, 2018

July 20, 2018

July 19, 2018

July 18, 2018

July 17, 2018

July 16, 2018

July 15, 2018

July 14, 2018

July 13, 2018

July 12, 2018

July 11, 2018

July 10, 2018

July 08, 2018

July 07, 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:2018-02-03_Junior_World_Championships_Luge_Altenberg_2018_–_Team_by_Sandro_Halank–13.jpg

2018-02-03 Junior World Championships Luge Altenberg 2018 – Team by Sandro Halank–13.jpg

  • Nomination 33rd Junior World Championship Luge, Altenberg 2018 – Team: Anna Smirnova (KAZ) --Sandro Halank 15:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The bottom crop is really unfortunate --Poco a poco 15:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I don't mind the crop. The feet of that lady are not essential for this kind of "portrait". Otherwise good.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. --Palauenc05 08:08, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You know all of these images are tilted, right? Do we think that's a problem?--Peulle 11:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 16:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Palauenc05 08:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Wikimania_2018,_Cape_Town_(_1050602).jpg

Wikimania 2018, Cape Town ( 1050602).jpg

  • Nomination African penguin on Boulders Beach, Cape Town --MB-one 08:53, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Inadequate description on image page. Too wide crop. Johannes Robalotoff 12:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • @Johannes Robalotoff: thanks for the comment. Fixed the description, disagree with the crop assessment. --MB-one 01:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral OK, as the framing is a matter of taste and the penguin is detailed and sharp, I am neutral now. Johannes Robalotoff 15:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote? Johannes Robalotoff 15:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

File:ਲੋਹੜੀ_Lohri.jpg

ਲੋਹੜੀ Lohri.jpg

  • Nomination ਲੋਹੜੀ ਉੱਤਰੀ ਭਾਰਤ ਦਾ, ਖ਼ਾਸ ਕਰ ਪੰਜਾਬ ਅਤੇ ਹਰਿਆਣੇ ਦਾ ਇੱਕ ਮਸ਼ਹੂਰ ਤਿਉਹਾਰI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:. By User:Sukhan saar --Satdeep Gill 05:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion Would like to have some information about this picture in English.--GPSLeo 16:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
    ✓ Done English description added --Satdeep Gill 15:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --GPSLeo 09:41, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree; there is very little sharpness (even taking the heat blur into account), and I find that light streak in front of the guy on the right disturbing.--Peulle 12:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Palauenc05 08:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Copsychus_saularis_@_Kuala_Lumpur_1.jpg

Copsychus saularis @ Kuala Lumpur 1.jpg

  • Nomination Oriental magpie-robin (Copsychus saularis) at Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Very slight pre-process posterization, I've no idea why. Also, the wet feathers that are reflecting the sunlight may be mistaken for artifacting.--GerifalteDelSabana 14:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Background too dark for bird --Atamari 14:29, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
@Atamari: The issue has been promptly addressed. --GerifalteDelSabana 14:33, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'll go along with this one; the bird itself is sharp and the background isn't too distracting for QI.--Peulle 12:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Peulle --Sandro Halank 15:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support QI 4 me. --Palauenc05 08:18, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Sandro Halank 15:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Pond_Heron_Safari_Park.jpg

Pond Heron Safari Park.jpg

  • Nomination Pond Heron at Safari Park. By User:Abdulmominbd --RockyMasum 13:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Quite alot of visible noise but I still love it. --GerifalteDelSabana 13:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, but not a QI like this, you'll have to find out the species ID and improve description+category --Poco a poco 14:44, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good photo, but bad description and category. Please fix this and I will support in spite of some visible noise. Johannes Robalotoff 11:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As it is, no. Too much noise, CA around the beak and insufficient categorization and description.--Peulle 12:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Where do you see (significant) CA? I think the slight purple fringe at the bird's beak could be part of its real color. Johannes Robalotoff 13:06, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
That could very well be the case.--Peulle 01:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If species is given and rare maybe a valuable image. --GPSLeo 20:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 12:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Pop_view_of_a_corner_in_Calle_Lardoni_Venice.jpg

Pop view of a corner in Calle Lardoni Venice.jpg

  • Nomination Pop view of Corte Lardoni and the belltower of the Angelo San Raffaele church in Venice --Moroder 17:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Interesting contrast, hard colours, quality high enough for Q1 Symbol support vote.svg Support --Michielverbeek 18:11, 18 July 2018 (UT}
  • {{o}} Sorry, strong chromatic noise (see note). Oversaturated IMO. Noised sky. Not QI for me--Lmbuga 18:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support ok --Sandro Halank 13:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done NR --Moroder 14:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support Better now. Thamks --Lmbuga 10:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Sandro Halank 13:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Start_am_Mittag.jpg

Start am Mittag.jpg

  • Nomination Start am Mittag, See am Goldberg, 63150 Heusenstamm By User:Mathias Mauer --Ralf Roletschek 06:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeNot sharped, not focused, slight motion blurring and posterization. --GerifalteDelSabana 06:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportBut for me it's good enough. Tournasol7 07:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per GerifalteDelSabana --Sandro Halank 13:30, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The filename must be improved. --XRay 05:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Quality-wise close to QI but I'm not quite sure, and the file name/description are meaningless.--Peulle 12:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment With species in the filename a good QI. --GPSLeo 20:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 12:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Sankt_Tönis,_die_Pfarrkirche_Sankt_Cornelius_Dm46_IMG_3064_2018-05-06_11.26.jpg

Sankt Tönis, die Pfarrkirche Sankt Cornelius Dm46 IMG 3064 2018-05-06 11.26.jpg

  • Nomination Sankt Tönis-NRW, church: die Pfarrkirche Sankt Cornelius --Michielverbeek 06:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It need a perspective correction, Tournasol7 07:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ralf Roletschek 07:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Tournasol7. Johannes Robalotoff 11:34, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The right is leaning in.--Peulle 12:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Tournasol7. --Fischer.H 15:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 12:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Dragonfly_0.jpg

Dragonfly 0.jpg

  • Nomination Dragonfly resting on a branch--Sathya K Selvam 04:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough. Sorry. --Ermell 06:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I disagree. It is sharp enough to see individual veins and some hair, so I feel that it is good enough for the type of shot. --GerifalteDelSabana 03:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Ermell --Sandro Halank 11:26, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose to many unsharp areas, --Fischer.H 15:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The DoF is too shallow.--Peulle 12:21, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The important areas are sharp. --GPSLeo 20:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 12:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

File:Burg_Landshut_jun_2018_(4).jpg

Burg Landshut jun 2018 (4).jpg

  • Nomination The castle Burg Landshut in Bernkastel-Kues.--Peulle 23:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sharp enough, perhaps because of the haze --Daniel Case 17:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your review. I think I'd like to get some more input on this one, though: considering the camera is 2,9 km away from the target and that we can still see individual stones in the walls despite the slight haze, I'm hard pressed to find anything really technically wrong with it. I have a feeling that this is about as good a long-shot it's possible to get on a hazy day. What do we think, people?--Peulle 19:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Good motive, but unfortunately for me no QI. --Fischer.H 11:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support. Somewhat soft probably due to haze, but "good enough". "De-hazing" would give unnatural colours. --Smial 09:24, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support, per Smial --Sandro Halank 09:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The blue haze in the air should not exist in a quality image. The positive reviews surprise me. -- Spurzem 20:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support per Smial. I've tried something of the same concept in the past, but it's so hazy here, "dust and dander" is rated on "extreme", haha... --GerifalteDelSabana 06:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support I'm agree whith others. Good picture. Clarity would be better. es: Aumentando la claridad el problema se reduce ---Lmbuga 17:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
New retouched image: File:Burg Landshut jun 2018 (4 retouched).jpg. I think that it's better and QI like the other one--Lmbuga 17:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Very nice rework, because it preserves some of the haze and did not increase color saturation too much. Now it is up to peulle, if he wants to withdraw the original and accept the rework? I do not think both versions of the very same image should be QI. --Smial 12:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
I have no idea what was done to that new image. If it's better, though, why not simply re-upload it as a new version? This is Commons after all.--Peulle 20:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
The author of the two photos is @Peulle:. If he wants to upload the second over the first, and delete the one that I have uploaded, there is no problem. (@Smial:)--Lmbuga 11:07, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
If someone wants to upload the new version over the old one, I have no problem with that.--Peulle 12:22, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Sandro Halank (talk) 10:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)


Harmonogram (dzień 8 po nominacji)

So 14 lip → N 22 lip
N 15 lip → Pn 23 lip
Pn 16 lip → Wt 24 lip
Wt 17 lip → Śr 25 lip
Śr 18 lip → Cz 26 lip
Cz 19 lip → Pt 27 lip
Pt 20 lip → So 28 lip
So 21 lip → N 29 lip
N 22 lip → Pn 30 lip