انبار:نامزدهای نگارهٔ باکیفیت

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 97% 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Outdated translations are marked like this.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
پرش به نامزدها

اینجا نامزدهای نگارهٔ باکیفیت موجود هستند و با نگارهٔ برگزیده یکسان نیست. اگر می‌خواهید بازخورد غیررسمی در مورد عکس‌های خود داشته باشید، لطفاً در Commons:Photography critiques مطرح کنید.

هدف

هدف از نگارهٔ باکیفیت تشویق افرادی است که شاکلهٔ انبار را تشکیل می‌دهند، کاربرانی که با ارائه تصاویر منحصر به فرد خود این مجموعه را گسترش می‌دهد. در حالی که نگارهٔ برگزیده مطلقاً بهترین تصاویر بارگذاری شده در انبار را مشخص می‌کند، 'نگارهٔ باکیفیت در راستای شناسایی و تشویق تلاش‌های کاربران در ارائه تصاویر باکیفیت به انبار فعالبت می‌کند. علاوه بر این، نگارهٔ باکیفیت باید مکانی برای ارجاع سایر کاربران هنگام توضیح روش‌های بهبود تصویر باشند.


رهنمودها

همهٔ نگاره‌های نامزد شده باید اثر کاربران انبار باشد.

برای نامزدکنندگان

در زیر رهنمودهای کلی برای نگاره‌های باکیفیت آمده‌است. معیارهای دقیق‌تر در انبار:رهنمودهای نگاره موجود است.

ملزومات صفحهٔ نگاره

  1. وضعیت حق تکثیر. نامزدهای نگارهٔ باکیفیت باید تحت مجوز مناسب در انبار بارگذاری شوند. الزامات کامل مجوز در انبار:برچسب‌های حق تکثیر موجود هستند.
  2. نگاره‌ها باید با تمام خط‌مشی‌ها و رویه‌های انبار، از جمله انبار:نگاره‌های افراد قابل شناسایی مطابقت داشته باشند.
  3. نگاره‌های باکیفیت باید دارای نام پرونده معنادار، رده‌بندی مناسب و دارای توضیحات دقیق به یک یا چند زبان در صفحه پرونده باشند. بهتر است شامل توضیحات به زبان انگلیسی نیز باشد، هرچند اجباری نیست.
  4. بدون تبلیغات یا امضا در نگاره. اطلاعات حق تکثیر و خالق(های) نگارهٔ باکیفیت باید در صفحهٔ نگاره قرار گیرد و ممکن است در فراداده نیز باشد، اما نباید محتوای نگاره را مخدوش کند.

خالق

Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

نگاره‌ها برای اینکه واجد شرایط باکفیت بودن باشند، باید توسط ویکی‌مدین‌ها ایجاد شده باشند. این بدان معناست که نگاره‌هایی که برای مثال از فلیکر بارگذاری می‌شوند نمی‌توانند نگارهٔ باکیفیت شوند. (توجه داشته باشید که نگاره‌های برگزیده این پیش‌شرط را ندارند.) بازتولید نگارهٔ آثار هنری دو بعدی توسط توسط ویکی‌مدین‌ها، واجد شرایط هستند (و باید مطابق رهنمودهای انبار، مجوز PD-old داشته باشند). اگر نگاره‌ای با وجود اینکه اثر کاربران انبار نیست به عنوان باکیفیت شناخته شود، به محض تشخیص اشتباه از شمول نگارهٔ باکیفیت حذف می‌شود.


ملزومات فنی

معیارهای دقیق‌تر در انبار:رهنمودهای نگاره موجود است.

تفکیک‌پذیری

نگاره‌های بیت‌نگاشت (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) باید دست کم ۲ میلیون پیکسل داشته باشند (مثلاً ۱۰۰۰×۲۰۰۰ پیکسل)؛ بازبین‌ها ممکن است برای موضوعاتی که می‌توان به راحتی از آنها عکس گرفت، تقاضای تفکیک‌پذیری بیشتری داشته باشند. تبیین چنین معیاری به این دلیل است که نگاره‌های انبار ممکن است چاپ شوند، روی نمایشگرهایی با وضوح بسیار بالا به نمایش دربیایند یا در رسانه‌ها مورد استفاده قرار بگیرند. این قانون نگاره‌سازی برداری مقیاس‌پذیر (SVG) یا نگاره‌های تولید شده توسط رایانه را که با برنامه‌های نرم‌افزاری با مجوز آزاد یا باز ساخته شده‌اند را همان‌طور که در توضیحات نگاره ذکر شده‌است، مستثنی می‌کند.

کیفیت نگاره

نگاره‌های دیجیتالی ممکن است با مشکلات مختلفی از جمله خش، مشکلات فشرده‌سازی JPEG، ناخوانا بودن قسمت‌های سایه یا برجسته‌شده و یا مشکلات ثبت رنگ مواجه شوند. همه این مسائل باید به درستی رسیدگی شود.

ترکیب‌بندی و نورپردازی

چیدمان سوژه در نگاره باید منجر به بهبود نگاره شود. اشیاء پیش‌زمینه و پس‌زمینه نباید باعث حواس‌پرتی از سوژه اصلی شوند. نورپردازی و فوکوس در نتیجهٔ نهایی مؤثر است؛ سوژه باید واضح، مرتب‌شده و دارای نوردهی مناسب باشد.

ارزش

هدف اصلی ما تشویق کاربران انبار به ارائه نگاره‌های باکیفیتی است که برای بنیاد ویکی‌مدیا و سایر پروژه‌ها ارزشمند است.

شیوهٔ نامزد کردن

به سادگی خطی با ساختار زیر به بخش Nominations در فهرست نامزدها اضافه کنید:

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

توضیحات نباید بیش از چند کلمه باشد و لطفاً یک خط خالی بین خط جدید و هر خط موجود بگذارید.

اگر تصویری را که خالق آن ویکی‌مدین دیگری است نامزد می‌کنید، نام کاربری آن‌ها را به شرح زیر درج کنید:

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

توجه: ابزاری به نام QInominator وجود دارد که فرایند نامزد کردن را سریع‌تر می‌کند. این ابزار یک پیوند کوچک «نامزد کردن این تصویر برای نگاره باکیفیت» را در بالای صفحهٔ هر پرونده اضافه می‌کند. با کلیک بر روی پیوند، نگاره به فهرستی از نامزدهای احتمالی اضافه می‌شود. پس از تکمیل این فهرست، نامزدهای نگارهٔ باکیفیت را ویرایش کنید. در بالای پنجره ویرایش یک نوار سبز رنگ نمایش داده می‌شود. با کلیک بر روی نوار، همهٔ نامزدهای بالقوه در پنجره ویرایش وارد می‌شوند.

تعداد نامزدی‌ها

توسط یک نامزدکننده نباید بیش از ۵ نامزد در روز افزوده شود.

توجه: در صورت امکان، برای هر عکسی که نامزد می کنید، لطفاً حداقل در خصوص یکی از نامزدهای دیگر اظهار نظر کنید.

ارزیابی تصاویر

هر کاربری که حداقل ۱۰ روز از ثبت‌نامش گذشته و ۵۰ ویرایش داشته باشد، به غیر از خالق نگاره و نامزدکننده، می‌تواند در خصوص نامزدی آن نگاره اظهارنظر کند. برای ارزیابی آسان‌تر، می‌توانید ابزار QICvote را فعال کنید.

هنگام ارزیابی نگاره‌ها، کاربر باید مطابق همان رهنمودهایی اظهار نظر کند که خودش به عنوان نامزدکننده درنظر می‌گیرد.

شیوهٔ اظهار نظر

شیوهٔ به‌روز رسانی وضعیت

تصویر را با دقت بازرسی کنید. آن را با تفکیک‌پذیری کامل باز کنید و بررسی کنید که آیا معیارهای کیفیت رعایت شده‌است یا خیر.

  • اگر موافق نامزدی هستید، خط مربوط به آن را تغییر دهید
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

به

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

به عبارت دیگر، الگو را از /Nomination به /Promotion تغییر دهید و امضای خود را به همراه نظر احتمالیتان بیفزایید.

  • اگر مخالف نامزدی هستید، خط مربوط به آن را تغییر دهید
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

به

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

به عبارت دیگر، الگو را از /Nomination به /Decline تغییر دهید و امضای خود را با بیان معیارهایی که نگاره آن‌ها را احراز نکرده بیفزایید. (می‌توانید عنوان آن بخش از رهنمودها را نام ببرید). اگر مشکلات متعددی وجود دارد، لطفاً فقط به ۲ یا ۳ مورد از شدیدترین آنها اشاره کنید یا صرفا «مشکلات متعدد» را اضافه کنید. وقتی نامزدی را رد می‌کنید، لطفاً دلایل را در صفحهٔ بحث نامزدکننده توضیحات را ارائه دهید - به عنوان یک قاعده، مهربان و دلگرم‌کننده باشید! در این توضیحات باید جزئیات بیشتری از تصمیم خود را شرح دهید.

توجه: لطفاً ابتدا قدیمی‌ترین تصاویر را ارزیابی کنید.

مهلت و جمع‌بندی

اگر در یک بازه زمانی ۲ روزه (دقیقا ۴۸ ساعت) از اولین اظهار نظر، هیچ نظر معارضی وجود نداشته باشد، تصویر با توجه به نظر دریافتی به عنوان باکفیت انتخاب می‌شود یا نمی‌شود. اگر اعتراضی دارید، فقط وضعیت آن را به "Discuss" تغییر دهید تا به بخش "Consensual review" منتقل شود.

نحوهٔ اجرای اجماع

QICbot دو روز پس از اجماع به‌طور خودکار این کار را انجام می‌دهد و نگاره‌هایی که یه عنوان باکیفیت انتخاب شده‌اند را در انبار:باکیفیت‌های اخیر ذخیره می‌کند تا در انتظار رده‌بندی برای درج خودکار در صفحهٔ نگاره‌های باکیفیت باشند.

اگر فکر می‌کنید که یک نگاره ویژه را شناسایی کرده‌اید که شایسته عنوان نگارهٔ برگزیده است، در نظر داشته باشید که نگاره را در نامزدهای نگارهٔ برگزیده نیز نامزد کنید.

دستورالعمل‌های دستی (فقط در مواقع اضطراری باز شود)

اگر باکیفیت انتخاب شد،

  1. نگاره را به گروه یا گروه‌های مناسب در صفحهٔ نگاره‌های باکیفیت اضافه کنید. نگاره همچنین باید به زیرصفحات مرتبط اضافه شود، تنها ۳ تا ۴ عکس از جدیدترین نگاره‌ها باید در صفحه اصلی نمایش داده شوند.
  2. الگوی {{QualityImage}} را به پایین صفحه توضیحات نگاره بیفزایید.
  3. خط مربوط به نامزدی نگاره و بررسی آن را به بایگانی همان ماه منتقل کنید.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

اگر باکیفیت انتخاب نشد،

  1. خط مربوط به نامزدی نگاره و بررسی آن را به بایگانی همان ماه منتقل کنید.

نگاره‌هایی که در انتظار اظهار نظر هستند، نامزدی را با رنگ آبی نشان می‌دهند. نگاره‌هایی که نظر مثبت دارند، نامزدی را با رنگ سبز نشان می‌دهند. نگاره‌هایی که نظر منفی دارند، نامزدی را با رنگ قزمز نشان می‌دهند.

نگاره‌های ارزیابی‌نشده (نامزدها با رنگ آبی)

نگاره‌های نامزدشده‌ای که با گذشت ۸ روز ارزیابی برای باکیفیت شدن، رد شدن، یا بحث اجماع (تساوی آرای موافق و مخالف) نداشته باشد، باید بدون انتخاب شدن از این صفحه حذف و بایگانی شوند و رده:نگاره‌های ارزیابی‌نشده به نگاره اضافه شود.

فرآیند بررسی از طریق اجماع

بررسی از طریق اجماع در مواردی که رویهٔ شرح داده شده در بالا کافی نیست و همچنین برای مواردی که ارائه نظرات بیشتر نیاز به بحث دارد، مورد استفاده قرار می‌گیرد.

نحوهٔ درخواست بررسی از طریق اجماع

برای درخواست بررسی از طریق اجماع، کافیست /Promotion یا /Decline به /Discuss تغییر دهید و نظرات خود را بلافاصله پس از بررسی اضافه کنید. یک ربات خودکار ظرف یک روز آن را به بخش بررسی از طریق اجماع منتقل می‌کند.

لطفاً فقط مواردی را برای بررسی از طریق اجماع ارسال کنید که به عنوان باکیفیت انتخاب شده/نشده‌اند. اگر به عنوان یک بازبین نمی‌توانید تصمیمی بگیرید، نظرات خود را اضافه کنید اما نامزد را در این صفحه باقی بگذارید.

قواعد بررسی از طریق اجماع

Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules را ببینید.

تازه‌سازی صفحه: purge this page's cache

Nominations

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

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] ‏۱۸:۵۴, ۲۸ مه ۲۰۲۴ (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries
  • Please help in reviewing "old" nominations here below first; many are still unassessed
  • If you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


May 28, 2024

May 27, 2024

May 26, 2024

May 25, 2024

May 24, 2024

May 23, 2024

May 22, 2024

May 21, 2024

May 20, 2024

May 19, 2024

May 18, 2024

May 17, 2024

May 16, 2024

May 15, 2024

May 14, 2024

May 13, 2024

May 12, 2024

May 8, 2024

May 5, 2024

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  Oppose and  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".



File:Santa-Anna_detail_de_Maria_Anton_Pitscheider_Menza.jpg

  • Nomination Statue of Saint Ann, Mary detail, by Maria Anton Pitscheider Menza --Moroder 10:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Parsa 2au 10:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, most of the subbject is out of focus. --Benjism89 11:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Low DoF and motion blur --Jakubhal 05:17, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Blurry even at 3 MP, and really blurry and noisy at full resolution. --Plozessor 05:19, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Again  Neutral. nice lighting, and composition. I find the image noise quite acceptable in this case, and I accept the DOF as a design element, even if it is a bit tight, but it does look blurred to me due to camera shake. --Smial 14:42, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Warsaw_2023_012.jpg

  • Nomination Tops Sigismund's Column & Royal Castle Tower, Warsaw --Scotch Mist 07:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion Quality is good. But needs a more meaningful file name and on the file page a specific description of the image content instead of general information about Warsaw --Milseburg 14:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for your review - the file name is essentially compliant with QI guidelines (meaningful name\frequent categorizing), the caption includes image specific information and the description, as well as providing some background history contains direct Wikipedia links to both Sigismund's Column and the Royal Castle, which are also referenced in the categories. --Scotch Mist 08:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC) I don't think so. File name and caption are too general. In the long description you have to look for Sigismund's Column for a long time and Zygmunt's Tower is not mentioned at all. The content of the image are these two. Both are necessary. Everything else just obscures what is actually important. --Milseburg 09:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
    Given the relatively recent introduction of captions perhaps there should be a wider discussion on this subject relative to whether this image is acceptable for QI? --Scotch Mist 10:46, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO the file name clearly fulfils criterion 2 of the file renaming guideline Commons:File renaming. This guideline lists an example "File:Paris 319.jpg" as a meaningless or ambiguous name ("only broad location"). In addition, the English description is bad because it contains a large and confusing quantity of information about the city, not just about the subject of the photo. The Polish description is shorter, but just about the city and the photographer's gallery. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Agree with Robert. File name should be more specific, and English description contains information that belongs into a Wikipedia article, not into the description of "what does this picture show". Also, not sure if it is written anywhere, but I think if a picture has descriptions in multiple languages, they should be identical. In this case, Polish description is totally different from the English one. I'd rename the file to something like "Sigimunds Column and Zygmunds Tower in Warsaw 2023.jpg" and replace the English description with a translation of the Polish one. --Plozessor 04:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment When renaming a file, the existing file name in a case like this should remain unchanged as a substring, as it is obviously a sorting criterion for the uploader. In any case, I get a sore throat when standardization fanatics think they have to remove my image numbers or other abbreviations they don't understand from the file names of my photos. Correcting spelling mistakes or short(!) additions are of course ok. However, comprehensive image descriptions belong in the image description, that's what it's there for. However, it should not contain an essay on the entire history of the city, country and ruling houses, but a brief and accurate description of the object depicted. In any case, placed at the beginning and easy to find. If you want to write a novel behind it, fine, you can. --Smial 15:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Robert Flogaus-Faust: & @Plozessor: There are several pertinent issues in this discussion:
    • File Naming: Ideally, according to the naming “guidelines” (Commons:File naming), file names should be very specific with time information and without inappropriate terms or any confusing details, all of which could lead to some very long file names indeed (many names of nominated QI files are already ‘long’ even without including the recommended “year or date”). Realistically a balance generally has to be struck with the primary override that “the uploader’s choice should be honoured”. (“Renaming” files to avoid “ambiguity” (2) may not work in practice, especially when loading tens, or possibly hundreds, of files and seeking “harmonization” (4) of those files. “When in doubt, aim for a stable more generic name.”)
    • File Names v Captions v Descriptions: Presumably the recent introduction of “Captions” was not intended to simply repeat a detailed file name, or a relatively brief description, so presumably the caption is where a short description of the image should now be entered (for QI images an “accurate description on the file page”).
    • Descriptions: Certainly in the past there have been criticisms of including historical backgrounds of photos of places, monuments, et al, but also some have expressed praise for directly including such info along with the image, often a brief summary of some of the Wikipedia info with links to other Wikipedia pages (which is generally recommended within the Wikipedia\Wikimedia environment).
    • In summary, to achieve an appropriate balance (max info\min time) that will encourage the greatest number of contributions to Wikimedia Commons it would appear that File Names, Captions, Desciptions, and importantly also Categories, should be considered together in providing the overall level of detail that will in turn encourage further interest and wider use of all images uploaded, particularly QIs. --Scotch Mist 08:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose for now. Commons:File naming is not a guideline, but it also contains the following sentence: "The name should not consist primarily of a broad location, such as File:Paris 319.jpg, Ontario hill, or Japan train station, where the location is so large that only someone who knows the area very well can identify the image." My suggestion is that you could keep much of your naming scheme by adding the subject of the image. Even though it would be best if it came first in the file name, I suppose that it would be completely acceptahle after your image number, so that it does not disrupt your file naming scheme. In addition, at least in my opinion, a description should at least clearly say what can be seen on the image. Otherwise it is just not meaningful.--Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Murmuration_(_agrégation)_d'un_groupe_d'étourneaux_sur_la_sebkha_de_Sijoumi.jpg

  • Nomination Murmuration (aggregation) of a group of starlings on the Sijoumi sabkhaI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2024. --Skander zarrad 07:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Velvet 06:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
    Like the image but would like to see a effort to reduce the vignetting, particularly on the left. --GRDN711 12:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
    i will see tomorrow to fix the vignettage you see , particularly on the left. Thank you --Skander zarrad 13:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done i fix it, thank you --Skander zarrad 21:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
 Comment I can see that you have lightened the image overall in your latest upload (which is good) but the left corners are still darker than the rest indicating vignetting. --GRDN711 12:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Łódź_2023_41.jpg

  • Nomination Maiden's Sad Expression - Tears of Fountain Sculpture in Łódź Palace Garden --Scotch Mist 06:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose disturbing artifacts, probably water drops. Sorry. --Moroder 10:45, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for review although of course there are "water drops" as the statue is in a water fountain (a different scenario from photographing a sculpture in a church), but the most prominent water drop appears like a 'tear' from the sad face of the maiden creating a unique image! --Scotch Mist 22:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Łódź_2023_43.jpg

  • Nomination Roof Top Sculpture at Łódź Palace --Scotch Mist 08:38, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose The head of the statue is too unsharp. --C messier 20:44, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for your review - is the image QI level with a more appropriate title such as "Roof Top Wrought Iron Work at Łódź Palace"? --Scotch Mist 06:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose wrong focus, per C Messier. --Smial 15:01, 27 May 2024 (UTC) (otherwise: disturbing background)
  •  Oppose Focus on the handrail, instead of the statue. Unappealing composition with distracting foreground and black shadows -- Basile Morin 04:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Łódź_2023_13.jpg

  • Nomination View of Poznański Palace in Łódź --Scotch Mist 05:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose I guess all those wires are disturbing --Moroder 16:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Agree, but there is no way to take a photo from this perspective without the wires and perhaps why we should avoid installing overhead cables where possible! --Scotch Mist 06:50, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Wires are there, better to have a picture from a distance with the wires than one of these distorted over-"verticalized" pictures from near the building. Picture is good. --Plozessor 04:22, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose for the file name and the description. --Robert Flogaus-Faust 18:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Dolfin-Wappen.svg

  • Nomination Coat of Arms of the House of Dolfin (Count)--ZuppaDiCarlo 12:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ashoppio 12:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am very conflicted,can such a small image be of quality? I would like to hear an opinion from others as well. Thank you. --GoldenArtists 13:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Since it is a SVG file the resolution doesn't count. Ashoppio 16:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support We had these discussions in the past, and there seems to be no rule that QI must be photos. This vector image seems to be good does not have any defects (I can't judge if it fully matches the original Coat of Arms though). --Plozessor 04:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

File:St_Leodegar_church_in_Chavaroux_(4).jpg

  • Nomination Bell tower of the Saint Leodegar church in Chavaroux, Puy-de-Dôme, France. --Tournasol7 04:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  • Too dark --Moroder 11:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO Ok. --Sebring12Hrs 18:21, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done, I've lightened it up a bit. --Tournasol7 19:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Did not see the original version, but the new one is definitely good. --Plozessor 06:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Moroder 09:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Scotch Mist 10:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom 14:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Yoonit,_Cyclingworld_Europe_2024,_Meerbusch_(P1170867).jpg

  • Nomination Yoonit transport bike at Cyclingworld Europe 2024 in Meerbusch --MB-one 21:30, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Background is disturbing a bit but overall quality is good for me. --Красный 03:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Disturbing background. Please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 14:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Sebring12Hrs. --Plozessor 06:07, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Cluttered background with beheaded people -- Basile Morin 04:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Basile Morin 04:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Sunrise_from_the_Vanjangi_hill_top.jpg

  • Nomination Sunrise from the summit of Vanjangi hills --IM3847 07:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Skander zarrad 07:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disagree. CAs an the ring-shaped light reflex on the right spoils it. --Milseburg 15:51, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There is a ring shaped glare on both sides. I don't know how to eliminate the rays artifact due to the shutter around the sun--Moroder 11:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hi @Milseburg: , @Moroder: Can we consider [this image] --IM3847 05:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Looks better, but I think there's an additional problem with the composition. The person with the bottles is unfavorable and dominant in the image with his legs cut off. Also slight tilted. --Milseburg 09:53, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support To me it looks ok as it is (I would consider the halo rather an effect than a defect), but the retouched version seems ok also. Could consider slight perspective correction though, those distorted people in the foreground are looking a bit awkward. --Plozessor 06:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support As per Plozessor --Scotch Mist 11:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Circular line / halo at the lower corners and yellowish cast as if the white balance was wrong, or the colors oversaturated -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Basile Morin 04:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Lusenberg_Josef_Moroder_Addolorata_detail.jpg

  • Nomination Our Lady of Sorrows, woodcarved polychromed statue in parish church of Urtijëi. Sculptor Josef Moroder-Lusenberg --Moroder 11:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality -- Spurzem 13:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, not sharp (motion blur due to low shutter speed), noisy. --Mandula 17:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment The camera has a electronic stabilizer --Moroder 17:41, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The "electronic stabilizer" might not be enough for 1/4 second exposure time. But IMO the issue with this picture is not motion blur but rather lack of DOF. In any case, at full resolution it's noisy, but even at lower resolution only the face is sharp while other parts are blurry. --Plozessor 05:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
    • The concept of this series of photos was to focus on the face of the statues since there are already good pictures of the whole statue.--Moroder 10:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
      • But the face is making up a too small portion of the image for that case, and when zoomed in, quality is no good (noisy and blurry). --Plozessor 06:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral I don't understand why you so often waste the possibilities offered by your camera by using very high ISO settings instead of using a tripod for such and similar motifs. This applies to the entire series of images presented. Of course, the very high image resolution still allows the photos to be used by shrinking them down to six or eight Mpixels. However, this cannot compensate for the loss of possible contrast range. --Smial 09:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC) Ps: Lighting and composition are all nice. A pity.
  • A tripod is not permitted in most churches and museums. That’s the reason why I moved from the X1C to the X2C 100C --Moroder 10:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
That is of course a problem, yes. But then you can't do QI in such places that could really be considered exemplary. I'm always willing to accept compromises when it comes to noise in sports photos, where you might like to use 1/4000 of a second, or moving subjects in dark surroundings (theaters, concerts). --Smial 17:11, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Why a compromise for sport and not for artwork that you can reveal to people. Btw I don’t think that my photos are that bad :-( --Moroder 22:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Because a Madonna statue like that doesn't wriggle around or run away when you take a photo of it. I didn't describe your photo as "bad" and, as you may have noticed, I didn't reject it either. But if you're no longer allowed to mention avoidable flaws here, then I'm probably in the wrong place. --Smial 12:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
@Smial: Please don't take me wrong. I really like your comments, but I might not always agree, which help for a good discussion. That's one of the main reasons I like QIC --Moroder 16:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
What strikes me is the different scale used to judge things. Almost regularly, absolutely weak images are highly praised and it is by no means rare that good or even very good images are downgraded. For some time now, this has been the reason for me not to actively participate in QIC with photos any longer and to only cast my vote sometimes. Best regards -- Spurzem 21:36, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
@Spurzem: As indicated by @Smial: , sometimes I'm opposing pictures with avoidable flaws. In a sense, when it would have been easy to take a better picture. Even if the result isn't too bad overall. QI is (at least partly) about avoiding photographic defects - and a 40 MP picture with incorrect focus is "defect" while a 10 MP picture with correct focus is not, even if the 40 MP picture might look sharp when downscaled to 10 MP. --Plozessor 06:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
@Plozessor: As you said before this picture is not out of focus but it lacks of DOF. There are two reasons: the light is very low in that church but the purpose of the foto was to focus on the face of the Madonna as in a portrait --Moroder 16:55, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

File:SchillerGym-Hof-Panorama_einfach_20240520.jpg

  • Nomination Panorama of Schiller high school in Hof, Germany. --PantheraLeo1359531 15:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 15:54, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Wrong WB? Very green. --ArildV 08:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per ArildV --Plozessor 05:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Info Thanks for the review, tried to reduce the green in this picture. I hope it is better now --PantheraLeo1359531 19:02, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The clouds on the top left do not meet QI standards. The building appears quite distorted in this representation. And I'm not sure about the file description. --Milseburg 14:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 14:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Altes_Rathaus_Bremen_-_Herolde_beim_SO-Portal_(2024).jpg

  • Nomination Heralds at the south-east side of the town hall in Bremen --JoachimKohler-HB 03:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --XRay 04:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
     Comment Good quality, but right side is leaning in. --Tournasol7 04:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Tournasol7. --Smial 15:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose +1 --Peulle 11:38, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Боровое._Большое_Чебачье_озеро.jpg

  • Nomination The Gulf of Naples on the Great Chebachy Lake, view from one of the rocks on the shore. Burabay national park. Burabay district Akmola region, Kazakhstan. By User:Евгений Емельянов --Красный 03:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too much noise and not enough sharp for a QI. --Remontees 17:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Just over 6 MPixels is a bit low for a landscape shot of this type these days, I find little remnants of CA and the sharpness could be a bit better. But it's enough for a decent A4-size print, and I really have nothing to complain about in terms of colour, lighting and composition. --Smial 20:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed IMO - halo effect around the farthest mountain. Seems like a mask was added with negative dehaze or similar to give the impression of distance. BigDom 09:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Per Smial --GoldenArtists (talk) 13:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom 14:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Egret_Flight_Reflection_Dawn_Harangi_Apr24_D72_26682.jpg

  • Nomination Medium egret (Ardea intermedia) in flight over Harangi Reservoir early morning, Suntikoppa, Coorg --Tagooty 00:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Amazing composition, but I'm afraid, the main subject doesn't show enough detail --MB-one 11:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Given the dawn lighting and motion, let's hear other opinions. --Tagooty 03:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately I have to agree with MB-one. The bird has very little detail and isn't really sharp. --Plozessor 13:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support. The very special lighting makes the photo appear blurrier than it is. Yes, you can definitely see weaknesses, especially on the bird's head. Overall, however, I think it's enough for a usable A4-size printout. --Smial 20:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Per Smial --GoldenArtists (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Smial --Moroder 17:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Smial - give photographic creativity the benefit of any doubt! --Scotch Mist 11:06, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom 14:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Ναός_Εισοδίων_της_Θεοτόκου_στο_Θίτι_DJI_0180.jpg

  • Nomination Top down view of the church of Eisodia Theotokou in Thiti, Attica. --C messier 19:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •  Oppose Not an acceptable composition for a QI. --Remontees 22:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 22:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The shadows are a little dark, but the quality is good and top down views are useful. -- Екатерина Борисова 14:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. Unfortunate lighting and too dark shadows. Thats no QI for me. -- Spurzem 20:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough for me --Moroder 09:48, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable for QI --Milseburg 14:55, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The questionable composition and level of shadow leave me struggling to support the image, as is, for QI --Scotch Mist 11:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promoted   --BigDom 14:52, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

جدول زمانی (روز هشتم نامزد شدن)

  • دوشنبه ۲۰ مه → سه‌شنبه ۲۸ مه
  • سه‌شنبه ۲۱ مه → چهارشنبه ۲۹ مه
  • چهارشنبه ۲۲ مه → پنجشنبه ۳۰ مه
  • پنجشنبه ۲۳ مه → جمعه ۳۱ مه
  • جمعه ۲۴ مه → شنبه ۰۱ ژوئن
  • شنبه ۲۵ مه → یکشنبه ۰۲ ژوئن
  • یکشنبه ۲۶ مه → دوشنبه ۰۳ ژوئن
  • دوشنبه ۲۷ مه → سه‌شنبه ۰۴ ژوئن
  • سه‌شنبه ۲۸ مه → چهارشنبه ۰۵ ژوئن