Commons:Kandidat për imazh cilësor

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 8% 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.

Shortcut
COM:QIC
Kalo tek kandidimi
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

Këto janë kandidatë për t'u bërë fotografi cilësore. Ju lutem vini re se kjo nuk është e njëjta gjë si fotografi e përkryer. Përveç kësaj, në qoftë se ju vetëm dëshironi disa komente në fotot tuaja ju mund të merrni atë në Commons:Photography critiques.

Qëllimi

Qëllimi i imazhe me cilësi është për të inkurajuar njerëzit që janë themeli i Commons, përdoruesit individual që ofrojnë pamjet unike që të zgjeruar këtë koleksion. 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.

Guidelines

All nominated images should be the work of Commons users.

For nominators

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


Image page requirements
  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.


Creator

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.

Technical requirements

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.


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. 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.


Image quality

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.


Composition and lighting

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.


Value

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


How to nominate

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

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

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.


Evaluating images

Any registered user whose accounts have at least 10 days and 50 edits, other than the author and the nominator, can review a nomination.
When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.


How to review

How to update the 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.


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


Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

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 August 15 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]] 17:19, 15 gusht 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.

August 15, 2018

August 14, 2018

August 13, 2018

August 12, 2018

August 11, 2018

August 10, 2018

August 9, 2018

August 8, 2018

August 7, 2018

August 6, 2018

August 5, 2018

August 4, 2018

August 3, 2018

July 31, 2018

July 28, 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:Untere_Mühle_Pufels_Gröden.jpg

Untere Mühle Pufels Gröden.jpg

  • Kandidimi Old Mill in Bula Val Gardena. --Moroder 16:38, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Diskutimi
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Ugly overexposed area, not a QI to me, sorry --Poco a poco 18:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I disagree, it's not overexposed it's just white clouds. --Moroder 21:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
    Wolfgang, the area in the top right is totally gone, look at it closely, it is just white, no detail, burnt. You will not be able to save it. --Poco a poco 07:17, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Moroder. Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 02:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The clouds need some fixings. Otherwise good.--Ermell 07:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry, as for poco. Clouds are clipping with harsh edges and partly posterization. --Smial 11:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 05:28, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Landscape_of_Rahier_with_cows.jpg

Landscape of Rahier with cows.jpg

  • Kandidimi Landscape with cows in Rahier (Stoumont, Wallonia, Belgium) --PJDespa 21:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Diskutimi
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. --GPSLeo 18:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Could someone give another opinion ? Why is tje quality unsufficient ,--PJDespa 21:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Looks hazy and a bit unsharp. Could you try to dehaze it a bit? Give it a bit more contrast, constrast in the midtones/clarity. --Basotxerri 05:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Hazy day. Seems acceptable to me, though if it indeed wasn't that hazy, sure, dehaze a bit. -- Ikan Kekek 08:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment New file uploaded, hope it is better. --PJDespa (talk) 10:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The "hazy" version looks more natural to me. --Smial 11:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do agree with you, so I revert to the previous file uploaded --PJDespa (talk) 12:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support I think it's acceptable, too. --Basotxerri 12:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Acceptable for QI. --Smial 13:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Basotxerri (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Bahía_de_Aialik,_Seward,_Alaska,_Estados_Unidos,_2017-08-21,_DD_48.jpg

Bahía de Aialik, Seward, Alaska, Estados Unidos, 2017-08-21, DD 48.jpg

  • Kandidimi Aialik Bay, Seward, Alaska, United States --Poco a poco 18:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Diskutimi
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Fantastic view and motive. I think it is a VI but not a QI --GPSLeo 18:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I uploaded a new version, it looks like QI now to me. Please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 19:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. --Basotxerri 05:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Dust spot on the left needs to be removed.--Ermell 07:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
    ✓ Dust spot gone, thanks, --Poco a poco 07:19, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri 05:21, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Balearica_regulorum_@_KL.jpg

Balearica regulorum @ KL.jpg

  • Kandidimi Grey-crowned crane (Balearica regulorum) --GerifalteDelSabana 14:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Diskutimi
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The top crop is really unfortunate --Poco a poco 07:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • What do others think? This one is really a matter of taste imho. --GerifalteDelSabana 12:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I agree with Poco a poco - the composition is spoiled with crop. Also image very noised -- George Chernilevsky 10:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Afraid so. You had plenty of room at the bottom, so there's no excuse for cutting off parts of the head's feathers.--Peulle 20:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --GerifalteDelSabana 05:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

File:The_procession_of_the_Noble_Contrada_"Oca_(Goose)"._Siena,_Italy.jpg

The procession of the Noble Contrada "Oca (Goose)". Siena, Italy.jpg

  • Kandidimi The procession of the Noble Contrada "Oca (Goose)" in Siena --Ввласенко 08:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Diskutimi
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeSorry, the out of focus flag in the foreground ruins the composition. --MB-one 18:25, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support due to the nice composition. --Palauenc05 07:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good use of low DOF, very good lighting. Focus neár perfect. --Smial 07:56, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Smial 07:59, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Bochumer_Hütte_2017.jpg

Bochumer Hütte 2017.jpg

  • Kandidimi The Bochumer Hut in the Kitzbühel Alps --Milseburg 10:53, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Diskutimi
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment How about the perspective?--Peulle 11:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Thanks for the hint. I´ve uploaded a new version. --Milseburg 12:49, 28 July 2018 (UTC) ***Peulle? --Milseburg 17:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
        • Thanks, but I wasn't referring to the verticals, but the barrel distortion. Surely the hut doesn't actually look like that with the round planks bulging upwards?--Peulle 11:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
          • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Well, I started a third attempt.--Milseburg 12:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
            • Well the planks are still curved.--Peulle 19:44, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
              • Pictogram voting info.svg Info 4th version is online now. The shooting location is noticeably below the hut. So this seems to be a challenge. I think it´s good enough for QI now. Don´t forget to refresh your cache. --Milseburg 13:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
                • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I appreciate the work, but I think it's time to decline this now. The barrel distortion is still clear as the planks are curving.--Peulle 09:41, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think it is lens distortion. Can usually be repaired .--Famberhorst 17:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
    • I think that's an exaggerated one-way accuracy for a QI nomination. Feel free to do better. I resign myself to straighten out all the planks and distorting anything else. --Milseburg 21:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Barrel distortion does not explain why some parts of the roof are perfectly straight, others not. The building seems to be bended. Somewhat harsh lighting, but good sharpness and colours appear natural. --Smial 08:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC) Vote removed after compare with other images of same building. --Smial 08:27, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Smial 08:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Obernberg_am_Brenner_-_Scheune_-BT-_02.jpg

Obernberg am Brenner - Scheune -BT- 02.jpg

  • Kandidimi Alpine barn near Obernberg am Brenner (Unterreinsalm). Tyrol, Austria --Basotxerri 16:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Diskutimi
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 16:39, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • As with the other one: Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for discussion; it's a QI, sure, but isn't it a derivative version of this image? Practice here is that only one version of the same image can be a QI - is this the one you're going for, rather than the colour one?--Peulle 16:45, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment First of all, I haven't nominated yet the other version of the image, so why can't I nominate this one? The other thing is that some months ago, I moved some of Famberhorst's B&W images to CR for the same reason. However noone here could indicate where the rule was written down that different versions of an image couldn't be QI at the same time. So I suggest that it should be added to the rules. Meanwhile, nominating different versions seems OK to me. --Basotxerri 07:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Well, one thing is the written rule and the rules in practice is quite another. As I think you understand (I'm just writing it here to clarify my position on record), if a user nominates an image for QI and it passes, (s)he can then make simple alterations to the same image (b/w, simple contrast adjustments, crops etc.) and submit them all. The practice is that QIC is not open to this. As to your first point, I did notice that you did not nominate the colour version (nice catch, eh? I'm like Sherlock Holmes, I see everything. ;) ), which is why I posed the question. :) --Peulle 20:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Anyway, I understand your reasons, Peulle, and that's absolutely OK. --Basotxerri 07:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support What is a derivative and what is a different development? IMO a B&W image is not a derivative if it's development is different from the coloured image. But it is possible, that the coloured photograph is QI and the B&W not and vice versa. An extracted image may be QI and the original not. IMO both can be nominated. Hopefully nobody will nominate photographs developed from the same source with only minor differences... --XRay 13:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "different development". This isn't film photography. All I need to change a colour photo into a b/w photo is to click one button.--Peulle 18:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • For me it's more than one button. IMO colors could improved in another way. Did you ever changed green, red or blue of a b/w image and see the different effect? Try different other option, they are other than colour. --XRay 16:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose in meinen Augen schlechte Löschung der Farbinformationen, keine Ähnlichkeit mit Schwarzweiß. --Ralf Roletschek 14:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per XRay --PJDespa (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --PJDespa (talk) 10:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Obernberg_am_Brenner_-_Scheune_-BT-_03.jpg

Obernberg am Brenner - Scheune -BT- 03.jpg

  • Kandidimi Alpine barn near Obernberg am Brenner (Unterreinsalm). Tyrol, Austria --Basotxerri 16:10, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Diskutimi
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice.--Famberhorst 16:37, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for discussion; it is nice, but isn't it a derivative version of this image? Practice here is that only one version of the same image can be a QI - is this the one you're going for, rather than the colour one?--Peulle 16:42, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment First of all, I haven't nominated yet the other version of the image, so why can't I nominate this one? The other thing is that some months ago, I moved some of Famberhorst's B&W images to CR for the same reason. However noone here could indicate where the rule was written down that different versions of an image couldn't be QI at the same time. So I suggest that it should be added to the rules. Meanwhile, nominating different versions seems OK to me. --Basotxerri 07:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support See above. --XRay 13:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Basotxerri, and nice too. Different crops and color schemes should be allowed; if a rule is made, I suggest no max number of crops, but a limit based on reasonability, as well as a maximum of two color schemes i.e. normal color+BnW. --GerifalteDelSabana 04:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No problem with our rules and good quality -- George Chernilevsky 15:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --XRay 13:56, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

File:2017-09-09_(105)_Erdfunkstelle_Aflenz_with_fog.jpg

2017-09-09 (105) Erdfunkstelle Aflenz with fog.jpg

  • Kandidimi Erdfunkstelle Aflenz, Austria with fog.--GT1976 06:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Diskutimi
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 07:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. Tilted/perspective, disturbing foreground objects. Not sure about the sharpness either. --Basotxerri 16:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Ralf Roletschek 14:52, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose perspective.--Peulle (talk) 20:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Weak Symbol support vote.svg Support Perspective at the left should be corrected. -- Spurzem 13:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Until the crop is optimised and the perspective is not corrected no QI for me.--Ermell 07:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There was an edit conflict at 06:55 today, so I've put it back to Discuss. --Basotxerri 12:50, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Perspective. -Smial 13:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Basotxerri 06:55, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

File:2017-11-20_(227)_Electricity_pylon_in_Pottenbrunn.jpg

2017-11-20 (227) Electricity pylon in Pottenbrunn.jpg

  • Kandidimi Electricity pylon in Pottenbrunn, Austria. --GT1976 06:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • E miratuar
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality, Tournasol7 06:57, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. Tilted. --Basotxerri 16:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like --Billy69150 11:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. I see no lack. -- Spurzem 13:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Symbol support vote.svg Promoted   --Basotxerri 06:54, 15 August 2018 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

Mar 07 Gsh → Mër 15 Gsh
Mër 08 Gsh → Enj 16 Gsh
Enj 09 Gsh → Pre 17 Gsh
Pre 10 Gsh → Sht 18 Gsh
Sht 11 Gsh → Die 19 Gsh
Die 12 Gsh → Hën 20 Gsh
Hën 13 Gsh → Mar 21 Gsh
Mar 14 Gsh → Mër 22 Gsh
Mër 15 Gsh → Enj 23 Gsh