Commons:Kandydatury do grafik wysokiej jakości

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.

Przejdź do nominacji
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Canadian English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎日本語 • ‎latviešu • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎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

Below are the general guidelines for Quality images; more detailed criteria are available at Image guidelines.


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.

Zasada nie jest stosowana dla grafiki wektorowej (SVG).


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 grudzień 2016 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]] 14:44, 10 grudzień 2016 (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 • ‎日本語 • ‎latviešu • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎中文

December 10, 2016

December 9, 2016

December 8, 2016

December 7, 2016

December 6, 2016

December 5, 2016

December 4, 2016

December 3, 2016

December 2, 2016

November 30, 2016

November 29, 2016

November 28, 2016

November 25, 2016

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:Bryce Canyon Inspiration (20).JPG

Bryce Canyon Inspiration (20).JPG

  • Nomination "Inspiration" Parc national de Bryce Canyon, dans l' Utah (USA).--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 11:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Minimal DoF problem, good quality --The Photographer 11:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective distortion: Trees of the left side--Lmbuga 14:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thank you for your advice correction perspective distortion: Trees of the left side.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 20:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --W.carter 10:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:পান_পাতা.jpg

পান পাতা.jpg

  • Nomination Betel leaf.--Masum-al-hasan 11:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit small, however, good quality --The Photographer 11:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Right upper side overexposed. Too tight IMO. Poor composition IMO!!--Lmbuga 14:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --W.carter 10:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:California_sea_lions_in_La_Jolla_(70565).jpg

California sea lions in La Jolla (70565).jpg

  • Nomination California sea lion. The crop of the bird is unfortunate; hopefully it's good enough to merit QI regardless. --Rhododendrites 03:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:37, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The top crop is too tight to me, not a QI to me like this, sorry --Poco a poco 17:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --W.carter 10:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:California_sea_lions_in_La_Jolla_(70564).jpg

California sea lions in La Jolla (70564).jpg

  • Nomination California sea lion.As with the other, it's a lousy birdcrop, but perhaps good enough sea lion image for QI. --Rhododendrites 03:07, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The top crop is too tight to me, not a QI to me like this, sorry --Poco a poco 17:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --W.carter 10:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Ana_rosa,_São_Paulo_Metro,_Line_blue,_Brazil.jpg

Ana rosa, São Paulo Metro, Line blue, Brazil.jpg

  • Nomination Ana rosa --The Photographer 10:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too much noise, sorry --Cvmontuy 20:07, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This image is taken with ISO 800. The noise level is acceptable. Additionally, the picture has a very interesting perspective. --Florian Fuchs 15:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --W.carter 10:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Newly_plowed_field.jpg

Newly plowed field.jpg

  • Nomination Newly plowed field. --W.carter 21:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose AF cought the foreground. Machine and house are too unsharp IMO --Ermell 22:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Ahem, that was intentional. The pic is actually focus stacked to get the reeds, field and the telephone poles sharp, while keeping the background soft in the hazy slanting light. No AF was used. ;) W.carter 22:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Doesn't satisfy my own aesthetic sensibility, but Symbol support vote.svg Support per cart's explanation. -- Ikan Kekek 22:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sadly, some parts are very mushy, especially at the left side. Details are completely lost --Shansov.net 22:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Ermell: Since I have a lot of material for this pic, I have inserted a sharper house and tractor, per request. W.carter 15:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --W.carter 13:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Mycalesis junonia-Thekkady.jpg

Mycalesis junonia-Thekkady.jpg

  • Nomination Mycalesis junonia --Jkadavoor 16:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 17:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree: Nice, but imo too dark --Moroder 21:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - This is a great closeup. I'm guessing that's the amount of natural light there was, and it's plenty to be able to see the details on the butterfly. -- Ikan Kekek 22:53, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Good enough, you can see the details. --W.carter 13:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree: As Moroder--Lmbuga 14:44, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Brightened a bit. Moroder, Lmbuga, please look. Jkadavoor 16:32, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support definitely QI. Charlesjsharp 21:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine. --Palauenc05 08:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Palauenc05 08:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Berlin,_Weiße_Kreuze_an_der_Spree_--_2016_--_5599.jpg

Berlin, Weiße Kreuze an der Spree -- 2016 -- 5599.jpg

  • Nomination White crosses at the river Spree (in front of Marie-Elisabeth-Lüders-Haus), Berlin, Germany --XRay 04:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Ajepbah 06:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Overexposed --A.Savin 16:19, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I won't contend that it isn't overexposed, only that it looks good (except for the annoying sky, but that's obviously how the sky looked that day). -- Ikan Kekek 23:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Livioandronico2013 17:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Ok, for me. W.carter 13:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Basotxerri 10:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Pabellón_Criollo_Venezolano.jpg

Pabellón Criollo Venezolano.jpg

  • Nomination Pabellón Criollo Venezolano --The Photographer 10:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too noisy and unfocused, IMO. Also, the white rice blends into the background - may I suggest using coloured background/plate? --Peulle 11:49, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done Noise is gone --The Photographer 12:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Mostly looks good enough for QI to me, but there are several dark spots that disturb me. What caused them? I do agree with Peulle that using a colored plate would produce a better photo, but I wouldn't hold up promotion on that basis alone. -- Ikan Kekek 13:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I will buy a cheaper chinese plate, what color could work better?. Thanks for the recomendation --The Photographer 13:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
What colors do you figure are your options? I could try to picture them in context. -- Ikan Kekek 13:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not great because it's hard for the eye to distinguish between the light that filtered through the clear plate on the left and the plate itself, but I think that with the latest edit, this is good enough for QI. -- Ikan Kekek 10:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, this less noisy version is better.--Peulle 12:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose First version too noisy (why ISO500? The subject is not running away), the denoised version doesn't look like food, looks like plastic. Sorry, some photos of food with better quality have been declined recently. Composition is rather nice, also colors. --Smial 00:06, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote? Peulle 12:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

File:African music singer in São Paulo downtown, Brazil.jpg

African music singer in São Paulo downtown, Brazil.jpg

  • Nomination Afrincan music singer --The Photographer 11:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Good quality. --Martin Falbisoner 11:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. Lots of retouching artifacts at the background (left) --Smial 12:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done noise reduction in background --The Photographer 18:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
    • There are little white specks on her arms and shirt. Can you do anything about those? I see a few of them on the woman in the pink and white dress, too. -- Ikan Kekek 04:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done --The Photographer 11:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The title should be "African", not "Afrincan", surely?--Peulle 11:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks done --The Photographer 12:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The Photographer, I still see little white spots in the hair of the woman in the pink and white dress. When you correct those, I plan to support this picture. -- Ikan Kekek 21:22, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Not done, and I'm now noticing some kind of terrible smudge on the left side that I don't remember seeing before. Too bad; this is a nice composition. -- Ikan Kekek 10:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    • The problem is overprocessing. We see some retouching in the background, and we see very strong noise reduction, then combined with strong sharpening. This makes artifacts everywhere. I would suggest to start from scratch with the raw file and use less invasive retouching methods. In street photography with moving people it can be necessary to use rather high ISO settings to get a sharp image and then some amount of noise is acceptable. Btw: I really like the composition and the situation. Great snapshot! --Smial 23:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is for me a "lived" picture and the quality is in my opinion good enough fo QI. --Rabax63 10:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too noisy and the background is too busy. But I like the subject. Alvesgaspar 23:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Weak support, IMO the noise is acceptable. --Palauenc05 22:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 22:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose On the whole I feel there is too much noise, especially considering this is an outdoor shot. --Peulle 11:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline? Peulle 11:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


Harmonogram (dzień 8 po nominacji)

Pt 02 gru → So 10 gru
So 03 gru → N 11 gru
N 04 gru → Pn 12 gru
Pn 05 gru → Wt 13 gru
Wt 06 gru → Śr 14 gru
Śr 07 gru → Cz 15 gru
Cz 08 gru → Pt 16 gru
Pt 09 gru → So 17 gru
So 10 gru → N 18 gru