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Outdated translations are marked like this.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 June 20 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]] 13:33, 20 6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.



June 20, 2019

June 19, 2019

June 18, 2019

June 17, 2019

June 16, 2019

June 15, 2019

June 14, 2019

June 13, 2019

June 12, 2019

June 11, 2019

June 9, 2019

June 8, 2019

June 4, 2019

May 31, 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:Greece_Cape_Sounion_BW_2017-10-09_10-54-42.jpg

 

  • Nomination Greece, Temple of Poseidon at Cape Sounion --Berthold Werner 14:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough --Michielverbeek 17:52, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Okay for me. I think we do not have to see every single stone with sharp edges at this distance. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 18:37, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I have to disagree. I think it's too important that the ruins are blurry. -- Ikan Kekek 20:23, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Spurzem. Good enough to be printed to A3. --Smial 08:00, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per others. --Manfred Kuzel 09:36, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 11:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Liége,_la_Passerelle_Saucy_verlicht_in_de_avond_IMG_9709_2019-06-01_22.31.jpg

 

  • Nomination Liége-Belgium, la Passerelle Saucy illuminated in the late evening --Michielverbeek 20:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion   Comment I have nominated yesterday six photos so I have replaced one to today --Michielverbeek 17:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
      Oppose - Nicely atmospheric, but not sharp enough in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek 21:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
      Comment - Whoever reset this from "Decline" to "Discuss" should please identify themselves and give an argument. Otherwise, I will reset it back to "Decline". -- Ikan Kekek 20:25, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
      Comment - In case it's not too late, I reset it to "Decline". Without a supporting vote or statement, this shouldn't be here. -- Ikan Kekek 05:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
      Comment Sorry, I did not realize that this was necessary because I simply don't agree with the decline. IMO it is sharp enough for QI. And I also would like to know what kind of a mistake I have made for this kind of unsharpness (f-value? exposure time? wrong focus? better camera?) and ofcourse I have used a tripod. Well I am not used to nominate a photo with such a long exposure time. --Michielverbeek 07:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
    OK, I've restored it to discuss. Yes, next time please make a statement that you are contesting the decline. I should say, I don't know what technical mistake you may have made; I only judge the result. Hopefully, someone else will be able to give you some suggestions. -- Ikan Kekek 09:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:2019-06-02_BeachVolleyball,_Die_Techniker_beach_tour_Nürnberg_StP_1983_LR10_by_Stepro.jpg

 

  • Nomination Die Techniker beach tour Nürnberg; Sektdusche nach der Siegerehrung; v.li.: Jonathan Erdmann (VCO Berlin), Sven Winter (DJK TuSA 06 Düsseldorf), Alexander Walkenhorst (DJK TuSA 06 Düsseldorf) --Stepro 10:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    More categories are needed --MB-one 09:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
      Oppose   Not done within a week. --XRay 07:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
      Info I will not add more or less appropriate categories just to increase their number. Categories are not an end in themselves. If someone finds a meaningful category, he can add them. --Stepro 15:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
    I think this should be discussed. --Stepro 21:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
      Comment - Good quality, but if there's a category of "sports celebrations" or something similar, it should be added. Is there one? -- Ikan Kekek 05:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
      Comment I finally found one: Category:Podium celebrations with Champagne --Stepro 06:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Enough categories and the picture quality has never been an issue. --Granada 07:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Yes, a fine photo. -- Ikan Kekek 09:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Rupa_Lake_&_paddy_fields.jpg

 

  • Nomination A small river connecting to Rupa Lake, Kaski, Nepal.By User:Chandrackd --Biplab Anand 08:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline   Support
    good quality. --Manfred Kuzel 08:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
      Oppose I disagree. This is large file, but it need the perspective correction and it's not sharp enough IMO. --Tournasol7 11:05, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Stitching errors with double contours in the upper half of the image. --Smial 11:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 11:23, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Dudhkund_Lake.jpg

 

  • Nomination Dudhkund Lake, Solukhumbu. By User:Chandrackd --Biplab Anand 08:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline
  •   Support Good quality. --SH6188 12:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Heavily downscaled + disturbing cap(?) in bottom left corner --Tsungam 13:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Tsungam.--Peulle 08:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose CA, too strong downscaling. --Smial 11:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose →   Declined   --Peulle 11:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Lake_Phewa.jpg

 

  • Nomination Phewa Lake, Pokhara, Nepal. By User:Chandrackd --Biplab Anand 08:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --SH6188 12:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Only without the dust spots. --Ermell 12:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --大诺史 14:21, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose for now until dust spots are cleanded (which will be a hard task) --Uoaei1 18:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Dust, CA, too strong downscaling. --Smial 11:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others for the dust or rain spots, without prejudice to Smial's other point. -- Ikan Kekek 19:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 19:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

File:The-promised-neverland-logo.svg

 

  • Nomination Logo of anime The Promised Neverland --Vulphere 03:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not made by a wikimedian. --Piotr Bart 15:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Please note: when judging whether these images are "made by a Commoner" or not, all these images should be judged the same.--Peulle 08:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Guidelines for quality images clearly states that images must be made by a Commoner, so "Not made by a Wikimedian" is a valid adjudication. -- Piotr Bart 11:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Was that for me? I agree with you, just so we're clear. I just wanted to add that if we decide that these images currently in CR are not made by a Commoner, then that should apply to all of them.--Peulle 17:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per rules --Uoaei1 17:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Uoaei1 17:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Dülmen,_ehem._St.-Barbara-Kaserne_--_2019_--_6394.jpg

 

  • Nomination Former barracks in Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Promotion
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. Dappled light. Poor composition. Sorry. --Stoxastikos 17:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Stoxastikos: It's an old, abandoned and unused building within the former barracks. The plants are growing up. The dappled light emphasizes the plants. Why do you think it's a poor composition? --XRay 15:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment @XRay: You ask why, in my opinion, this picture suffers from bad composition? Well, because it’s not beautiful. OK, OK, just kidding. I won’t touch on aesthetics here because, after all, it’s a subjective thing. Rather, technically speaking, I would claim that the photo represents the subject in a poor way. First of all, I (maybe naively) believe, that entire point of taking a picture is to tell a story or, if not, to convey a feeling. You say it’s an abandoned barracks, and I have no reason to disbelieve you. Sure it is. But how would I know it if you wouldn’t tell me? What’s so barracky about it? It’s just some wall that could belong to any building whatsoever. So, without your explanation I am not able to extract any meaning from the photo and thus can’t feel the desolation you are talking about. It’s hard for me to feel anything while looking at the plain brick wall. It’s a job of the photographer to find an angle at which the building would look forlorn and abandoned without any explanations. In other words, the picture should speak for itself. Second reason is perspective. Shooting through the canopy of the foliage in the sunny day while standing in shadow inevitably produces washed out sky. The result is usually made even more unnatural by the harsh contrast between the totally white background and darker leaves. Now, to the third point. Truth to be told, I don’t particularly care for your shooting the wall head on, so it looks completely flat, with no dimensions outside the classic Cartesian X and Y. I’d like to see at least some hint of Z, which would be possible only if the picture was taken from an angle. And, finally, about the dappled light. It does not emphasize the trees. To the contrary. It is very well known, that human eyes looking at any picture or painting go first to the brightest spot. That’s why many photographers use various techniques to switch the attention of the viewer to the most important part of the picture. Using vignetting, dodge and burn etc. they make the most important parts brighter and less important – darker. The dappled light acts effectively as a camouflage hiding the wall by forcing the eyes to wander choosing one of the multiple bright spots, of which the most are located in the sky here. Therefore the building remains the last to be seen. I sure may be wrong. It’s just my take from this particular picture. Stoxastikos 20:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Wrong or not, your answer is really good. I can follow your arguments, yes. The photo alone does not express it. I've taken a lot of photographs and hopefully they all together will express it. The photographs are used for a project of the history of the cold war. It's just an impression of the former barracks. Other photos may taken much easier, these one with the plants (and a lot of fences) not. But I didn't expected such answer, a really good explanation of your review. Thanks a lot! --XRay 08:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment @XRay: You are very welcome! If I may suggest a way to make this picture more telling even from this angle, you can try the following: come at night, when it's dark, place the camera on the tripod, make the exposure longer using ND filter or just close the aperture and lower the ISO, and then use some light painting concentrating on the window to create an impression of a slight glow emanating from the inside. After some trial and error it may turn out spooky enough to emphasize the full point: the war slowly fading away in the shadows of history. Stoxastikos 09:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry, but these photographs are used as a document for a project of the Cold War in the Münsterland. It would be too artifical for this project. But thank you for your ideas. --XRay 18:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Good quality and an acceptable composition, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 00:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The picture with the disturbing shadows does not correspond to its description. -- Spurzem 16:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC) I change to   Neutral. Look below. -- Spurzem 16:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Spurzem: Why not? It's part of the barracks. --XRay 15:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@XRay: Please do not mind me, but it is really only a very small part of the barracks, and the shadows and bushes are too disturbing to give an idea of the building. -- Spurzem 16:18, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
No problem, thank you. Some of the buildings are still in use (for companies and other), some are waiting for demolition - like this one. It's overgrown since a lot of years. --XRay 16:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. --M@nfred (talk) 11:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Ikan. --Aristeas 12:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 01:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)


Timetable (day 8 after nomination)

水 12 6月 → 木 20 6月
木 13 6月 → 金 21 6月
金 14 6月 → 土 22 6月
土 15 6月 → 日 23 6月
日 16 6月 → 月 24 6月
月 17 6月 → 火 25 6月
火 18 6月 → 水 26 6月
水 19 6月 → 木 27 6月
木 20 6月 → 金 28 6月