Open main menu
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Quality images candidates and the translation is 44% 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Outdated translations are marked like this.
推薦一覧に移動
Other languages:
Bahasa Indonesia • ‎Bahasa Melayu • ‎Canadian English • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Nederlands • ‎dansk • ‎español • ‎français • ‎latviešu • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎čeština • ‎македонски • ‎русский • ‎українська • ‎العربية • ‎मैथिली • ‎ไทย • ‎中文 • ‎日本語
float

ここは「良質な画像」を選定するため候補画像を集めたページです。 「秀逸な画像」とは違う事に注意して下さい。 Additionally, if you just want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at Commons:Photography critiques.

Contents

目的

「良質な画像」の目的は、コモンズのの活動の基盤となっている人々、すなわちコレクションの拡大につながる独特の画像を提供している個々の利用者を応援することにあります。 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.

ガイドライン

良質な画像への推薦はコモンズユーザー自身が作成したものに限ります。

画像を推薦する方へ

以下の説明は良質な画像への全般的なガイドラインです。より詳しい評価基準は画像のガイドラインを参照して下さい。


画像に要求されるもの
  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.


作者

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.

撮影技術

さらに詳細な評価基準はイメージガイドラインを参照して下さい。


解像度

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.


画像品質

デジタル画像は取り込みや処理において様々な問題が生じている可能性があります。予防可能なノイズ、JPEG圧縮の際の問題、シャドウ、ハイライト部分の情報不足、色の取り込みにおける問題、これらの問題はすべて正しく処理されている必要があります。


構図と照明効果

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.


価値観点

我々の目標は、コモンズを通して行われる、ウィキメディアの他のプロジェクト群において有用となる良質な画像の投稿を、奨励することにあります。


推薦方法

Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list の候補画像リストの節に以下の行を追記するだけで推薦することが可能です。

File:画像名.jpg|{{/Nomination|簡潔に画像の説明を記入  --~~~~ |}}

画像の説明は簡単で構いません。また、ひとつ前の候補画像との間には何もない行を一行残しておいてください。

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.


推薦数

推薦に際しては、あなたが最高と評価する画像を慎重に選んで下さい。一度に二枚を超える画像を加えた場合”多すぎ”と見なされ、他利用者から難色を示されたり、直ちに枚数を減らされたりすることがあります。


画像評価

評価資格は登録ユーザーであれば誰でもあります。
評価者は推薦者と同様にイメージガイドラインを基準に画像の評価をしてください。


評価方法

How to update the status

画像の評価は慎重に行って下さい。画像は等倍サイズで開き、品質基準が満たされているかどうかを確認して下さい。

  • その画像が品質を満たしていると判断したら、下記の様に該当箇所を書き換えます。

File:画像名.jpg|{{/Nomination| 画像説明 --推薦者署名 |}}

File:画像名.jpg|{{/Promotion| 画像説明 --推薦者署名 | 評価理由 --~~~~ }}

つまりテンプレートを /Nomination から /Promotion へ切り替え、署名をし、可能ならコメントを記入するのみです。

  • 画像が基準を満たしていないと判断した場合は、下記の様に書き換えます。

File:画像名.jpg|{{/Nomination| 画像説明 --推薦者署名 |}}

File:画像名.jpg|{{/Decline| 画像説明 --推薦者署名 | 評価理由 --~~~~ }}

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.


評価猶予期間から決定まで

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


評価を受けなかった画像(青枠のまま)

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 19 2019 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]] 21:41, 19 7月 2019 (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.
If there are terms you are unfamiliar with, please see explanations at Photography terms.

Thank you.



July 19, 2019

July 18, 2019

July 17, 2019

July 16, 2019

July 15, 2019

July 14, 2019

July 13, 2019

July 12, 2019

July 11, 2019

July 10, 2019

July 9, 2019

July 8, 2019

July 4, 2019

July 3, 2019

July 2, 2019

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".


Consensual Review

File:Item_on_display_on_the_outside_of_the_museum_at_Utica_02.jpg

 

  • Nomination Capital of a Roman column on the outside of the museum at Utica --Kritzolina 07:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   SupportGood quality. --Manfred Kuzel 07:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree with this one. I think the photo could have been better. It's quite soft, you could have used smaller aperture to produce deeper DoF. Also, the background seems to be blown, perspective fix would be good --Podzemnik 07:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  Comment Bezüglich der Perspektive muß ich widersprechen! Hier geht es um das dargestellte Motiv und nicht um den Hintergrund! Und wenn man das Motiv von oben oder unten fotografieen muß, damit es korrekt dargestellt wird, dann kann die Perspektive des Hintergrundes niemals stimmen. --Manfred Kuzel 04:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I fully agree with Podzemnik. @Manfred: grundsätzlich richtig, trifft hier aber nicht zu. --Uoaei1 06:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Uoaei1: Wenn Du links die Perspektive korrigierst, dann schneidest Du das Motiv ab. --Manfred Kuzel 14:38, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Ich hätte hier eine andere Version als Vorschlag. Leider ist die Tärfenschiefe unnötig gering. --Ralf Roletschek 18:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Asphalt_crew_Drammen_2019_(7).jpg

 

  • Nomination Asphalt crew at a construction site in Drammen.--Peulle 06:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Light comes from the wrong side, especially the front of the truck is too dark. -- Spurzem 07:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I've seen images with similar light conditions promoted before.--Peulle 14:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support QI for me.--Ermell 07:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 07:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Asphalt_crew_Drammen_2019_(6).jpg

 

  • Nomination Asphalt crew at a construction site in Drammen.--Peulle 06:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Light from the wrong side, poor description of the image -- Spurzem 07:24, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree.--Peulle 14:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Nothing wrong with that.--Ermell 07:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Gotta go w/ Ermell here. --Fluffy89502 23:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Fluffy89502 23:13, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

File:The_Northeastern_Corner_Round_Tower2.JPG

 

  • Nomination The Northeastern Corner Round Tower, Tobolsk Kremlin, Russia. --СССР 00:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:31, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Hmmmm I think we should discuss this; the image seems a bit underexposed.--Peulle 07:04, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment The image would definitely be (even) better if it was a bit brighter. Should be easy to correct, just dont’ clip the highlights. --Aristeas 07:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done: brightened --СССР 02:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Ermell 07:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

File:20190623_Wodna_Masa_Krytyczna_na_Wiśle_w_Krakowie_1431_9634_DxO.jpg

 

  • Nomination Water Critical Mass event on Vistula River in Kraków --Jakubhal 20:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose The boat on the right is disturbing, sorry. --Peulle 22:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I disagree. For sure the boat on the right is a problem. But it is not a FPC and I belive it is enough for QIC. I would like to see other opinions. --Jakubhal 18:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • No problem, let's see what others say. :) Just so you don't think I took this from nowhere, I was referring to the "Composition" section of the QI Guidelines, which say that: "the elements within the image should support depiction of the subject, not distract from it.". I felt that this part of the boat on the right side distracts from the subject, which is otherwise well captured.--Peulle 10:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Sharp, uncluttered, and well-exposed. --Smial 10:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Funny and good quality -- Spurzem 15:28, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Seven Pandas 21:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Hudson_Hornet_de_1954,_Helsinki,_Finlandia,_2012-08-14,_DD_01.JPG

 

  • Nomination Hudson Hornet of 1954, Helsinki, Finnland --Poco a poco 13:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality --Michielverbeek 17:37, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The black grease on the bonnet (meanwhile removed), the blackened, probably already fictitious license plate and the information sheet in the windshield are very disturbing. Besides, the car is unnaturally distorted. For me, the photo would not be a quality picture. -- Spurzem 21:47, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment As it's obvious that you, Spurzem, cannot handle a criticism (or a contra to one of your images) I already stated, that I wouldn't review any of your images. I expect though the same from you otherwise I consider this a provocation! Don't play with me. Poco a poco 18:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Ermell 07:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I must say that I find those black smudges a bit disturbing.--Peulle 08:03, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
    Peulle, one of them was there by mistake, I removed it. Poco a poco 18:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Peule. Also somewhat low DOF. --Smial 10:56, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Kaldari asked in the talk page of the file why I smudged the license plate. My motivation to do that was this, whether it's a must and why I cannot really say. Poco a poco 17:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't object to the changing of license plates per se, but the way it has been done in this case.--Peulle 17:48, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Tournasol7 06:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Please provide a reason. --Smial 11:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question was ist mit dem Nummernschild passiert? Irgendwie zu weitwinklig... --Ralf Roletschek 21:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Tournasol7 06:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Catedral_de_Puebla,_México,_2013-10-11,_DD_08.JPG

 

  • Nomination Puebla Cathedral, Mexico --Poco a poco 07:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Why landscape orientation? Portrait would have allowed less perspective distortion. --Smial 07:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, what can I add, it is as it is... --Poco a poco 09:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Cvmontuy 01:02, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. Wrong image orientation, so unecessary extreme perspective. --Smial 09:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The positive first rating above is amazing. I can not gain the photograph anything. The perspective gives hardly any impression of the building, the strong shadows in the foreground are unattractive and the picture loses sharply upwards. -- Spurzem 09:09, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
    You are really pushing hard Spurzem to aggravate this issue instead of mitigating it. I'm being polite enough to you not reviewing your images which often are hardly above the bar, don't wikihound me! --Poco a poco 19:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support IMHO the image is good as it is. It was the artistic choice of the photographer to try landscape orientation here; as we can learn from probably any textbook about photography, sometimes it is appropriate to break the rules to get a fresh expression; and this image actually has quite some effect. All (other) technical things are done well. So, maybe not the most usual kind of building photos here at QI, but an interesting image and good quality. --Aristeas 07:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree with Aristeas.--Ermell 20:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Aristeas 07:14, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion {{{2}}}

File:Préfecture_du_Haut-Rhin_(1)_-_sans_lumière.jpg

 

  • Nomination Prefecture of Haut-Rhin without light in Colmar (Haut-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 12:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion   SupportGood quality. --Cvmontuy 01:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
      OpposeI disagree This image is underexposed by at least 1/2 f-stop, probably one f-stop. --Smial 11:21, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
      Neutral Smial is right that the image would be better (nicer) if lifted by about 1/2 to 1 f-stop. On the other hand, this seems to be a blue hour photograph, and the blue hour is dark, so one could argue that the brightness (darkness) of the image is just reality. --Aristeas 07:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
  Comment It's a series of photos taken at one minute intervals (with File:Préfecture du Haut-Rhin (2) - avec lumière.jpg and File:Préfecture du Haut-Rhin (3) - avec lumière bleue.jpg), the settings are the same, actually the first is less exposed because no light on the building. Gzen92 [discuter] 06:13, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Seven Pandas 00:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

File:_St._Remaclus_Waldorf_(2019-07-14_Sp).JPG

 

  • Nomination Saint Remaclus, statue in the parish church of Waldorf in Vinxtbachtal Spurzem 17:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Oppose It lacks sharpness to me, sorry --Poco a poco 20:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
    This may be due to your eyes. Or is it a return coach? I ask for discussion. -- Spurzem 21:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
      Support This is not an excellente picture, but a QI for me. --Manfred Kuzel 09:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Weak   Support. It looks like slight motion blur, but it is still good enough to be printed in A4 format (or letter size). Lothar: Please don't complain almost every time that somebody wants to personally hit you when pictures of you get a "contra". You know how much I appreciate your photographic contributions here, but a little more calmness would greatly improve the discussion climate. -- Smial 09:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Don't worry, Smial, it was the last time I reviewed a image of Spurzem. I saw yesterday, that I had promoted 2 of this last 4 QIs. No complaints there, but here after I felt this image is at the same time small and blurry. Will not make a theater out of it but I prefer exchanging reviews with users who can come along with them, independently of pros or contras. Poco a poco 10:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The eyes are not sharp enough for QI IMO, Do we have a more precise sharpness criteria or it depends completely on perception and taste of the reviewer?, --Cvmontuy 00:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
    @Cvmontuy: My impression, but which can be wrong: The assessment depends exclusively on the individual's feelings as well as on sympathy and antipathy. Objective criteria obviously play a minor role here. Look to your votes above. -- Spurzem 07:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Spurzem:, that is why I am asking, must of the time my votes are based just on if I like or not a picture, (not in the author) but still subjetive, and many times I'll would like to have a more objective procedures.--Cvmontuy 12:20, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@Cvmontuy: Your reviews currently seem to depend on your personal feelings indeed and not due to comprehensible criteria. That's not good as I think. -- Spurzem 13:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is not sharp.--Peulle 06:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others --Uoaei1 08:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Uoaei1 08:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Verena_Stauffer_at_Lyrikmarkt_Berlin_2019_03.jpg

 

  • Nomination Verena Stauffer reading at the Lyrikmarkt Berlin 2019 --Kritzolina 21:11, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   OpposeCropped hair is not nice. --Dktue 21:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose The crop is fine to me, but it has lack of detail, sorry --Cvmontuy 03:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I disagree. Not a studio shot but in a live situation and therefore by far good enough, --Smial 10:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good image. Perhaps it could be cropped more at the right. -- Spurzem 21:56, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cvmontuy.--Peulle 22:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Resolution is pretty high but the lack of detail is obvious also at smaller sizes Poco a poco 19:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I consider a rejection of this image with the mentioned "too little detail" argument unobjective and for a case of double standards. In the conditions for QIC we have a few exceptions for the evaluation of images if they were taken under particularly difficult conditions. These include taking pictures in difficult lighting conditions, in which both an increase in image noise is permitted, provided that it remains within reasonable limits, and a certain degree of downscaling or lower resolution is permitted compared with easy-to-take pictures. We clearly have a shot here that was taken under difficult circumstances (ISO800, 1/125s at 400mm 35mm equivalent focal length) and is also available at full resolution. If the image had been scaled down appropriately, the low blur would not be noticeable at all and the image would be accepted as QI without much objection. At least if it had been presented by the "right" photographer. --Smial 09:41, 17 July 2019 (UTC) Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator
  •   Support nice crop. --Ralf Roletschek 13:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Seven Pandas 20:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

File:PuertoPuntadelEste-jul2019.4.jpg

 

  • Nomination View of Punta del Este, Uruguay --Ezarate 22:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion *  OpposeOverall insufficient quality. Dark, noisy, perspective not corrected, maybe tilted. --Dirtsc 06:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
    *@Dirtsc: see now, please Ezarate 22:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Ezarate should have put this image to CR by himself after it was first rejected by me and then reworked. As this was not done, I put it to CR, to have more opinions. I'm still not convinced, it is better now, but now has slight CAs on the edges of the buildings. Greetings --Dirtsc 07:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
CA fixed, thanks Ezarate 11:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support looks good now --Dirtsc 08:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose I appreciate the rework done but IMO, the image still seems dark and a little soft to me. --GRDN711 19:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Seven Pandas 21:17, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Newhall_Pass_Interchange_from_bypass_2016-11-28.jpg

 

  • Nomination Newhall Pass interchange. (by Junkyardsparkle)- Fluffy89502 04:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion   Support
    Good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 04:44, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
    Again: Good quality, but not your photo. Please fix the nomination per the instructions above on how to nominate other people's photos, or I'll move this to CR until you do. -- Ikan Kekek 18:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
    Nitpicky procedural   Oppose until the photographer is duly credited in this nomination. -- Ikan Kekek 04:45, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  Done @Ikan Kekek: my apologies :/
  •   Question - Ralf, why are you supporting when the photographer is not duly credited in the nomination? You should really remove your supporting vote until that is taken care of. I, too, will support, but only then! -- Ikan Kekek 15:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Because it's a quality Image. --Ralf Roletschek 09:26, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it's a quality image, but the attribution is of no importance whatsoever to you? -- Ikan Kekek 08:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too blurry IMO.--Ermell 06:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose -- Seven Pandas 20:55, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support -- Ikan Kekek 05:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ermell --Tsungam 08:10, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ermell --Cvmontuy 18:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose There is no detail here, it looks like camera shake, not a QI to me, sorry --Poco a poco 19:45, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Motion blur. -- Smial 10:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose → Decline?   --Seven Pandas 00:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

木 11 7月 → 金 19 7月
金 12 7月 → 土 20 7月
土 13 7月 → 日 21 7月
日 14 7月 → 月 22 7月
月 15 7月 → 火 23 7月
火 16 7月 → 水 24 7月
水 17 7月 → 木 25 7月
木 18 7月 → 金 26 7月
金 19 7月 → 土 27 7月