Open main menu

Commons:Кандидати за квалитетни слики

This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Quality images candidates and the translation is 88% 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Outdated translations are marked like this.
Оди на предлози
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

Ова се кандидати за квалитетни слики. Имајте во превид дека ова не е исто што и избрани слики. Покрај ова, доколку сакате само да добиете мислење за вашите слики, поставете ги на страницата Фотографски критики.

Contents

Цел

Целта на квалитетните слики е да се даде поддршка на луѓето кои се темелот на Ризницата, поединечните корисници кои ставаат уникатни слики и со тоа ја прошируваат нашава збирка. Додека избраните слики ги истакнуваат апсолутно најдобрите слики на Ризницата, Квалитетните слики имаат за цел да ги поттикнат корисниците да се залагаат да ја обогатат Ризницата со квалитетни слики.
Покрај ова, квалитетните слики треба да бидат и надгледен материјал каде другите корисници ќе можат визуелно да ги видат методите за подобрување на нивните слики.

Напатствија

Сите предложени слики треба да бидат дело на корисници на Ризницата.

За предлагачите

Подолу се дадени општи напатствија за Квалитетни слики, а поподробни критериуми ќе најдете на страниицата Напатствија за слики.


Услови за страницата на сликата
  1. Статус на авторски права. Кандидатите за Квалитетни слики мора да се подигнати на Ризницата под соодветна лиценца. Целосен преглед на условите за лиценцирање ќе најдете на COM:CT.
  2. Сликите треба да се придржуваат на правилата и практиките на Ризницата, вклучувајќи го она за слики на препознатливи личности.
  3. Квалитетните слики треба да имаат содржајни имиња, да бидат соодветно категоризирани и да имаат точен опис на нивната страница на еден или повеќе јазици. Се препорачува да има и опис на англиски.
  4. На сликата не смее да има било какви реклами или потписи. Информациите за авторското право и творецот на сликата треба да стојат на нејзината страница (може да бидат и во метаподатоците), но не смеат да бидат на самата слика.


Создавач

Сликите мора да се дело на Викимедијанец за воопшто да се квалификуваат за статусот на квалитетна слика. Ова значи дека слики од места како Flickr немаат право на учество. (Избраните слики не подлежат на ова правило.)

Фотографските репродукции на дводимензионални уметнички дела направени од Викимедијанци се дозволени (и треба да се лиценцираат со „PD-old“ според правилата на Ризницата).

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.

Технички услови

Повеќе за овие кротериуми на Commons:Напатствија за слики.


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.


Квалитет на сликите

Дигиталните слики знаат да страдаат од разни проблеми кои произгледуваат од правењето на сликата и нејзината обработка, како на пример шум, проблеми со JPEG компресија, недостиг на информации во сенливи или светли делови, или проблеми со доловувањето на боите. Треба да се внимава на сите овие нешта.


Композиција и осветлување

Распоредот на субјектот во рамките на сликата треба да прдоинесува кон истата. Предметите во преден и заден план не смеат да пречат. осветлувањето и фокусот исто така имаат свој удел во конечниот резултат; субјектот треба да биде остар, јасен и добро осветлен.


Значење

Нашата главна цел е да поттикнеме придонесување на квалитетни слики на Ризницата, кои се од големо значење за проектите на Викимедија.


Како да номинирате

Едноставно додајте ред од овој облик на врвот од делот за номинации на страницата Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

File:ИмеНаСликаОвде.jpg|{{/Nomination|1=Многу краток опис  --~~~~ |2=}}

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.


Проценка на слики

Секој регистриран корисник може да оценува предлози.
При проценувањето на слики, оценувачот мора да ги има на ум истите напатствија како и предлагачот.


Како да оценувате

Како да го подновите статусот

Оценувајте ја секоја слика внимателно. Отворете ја во полна резолуција, и проверете дали ги задоволува критериумите за квалитет.

  • Ако решите да го поддржите предлогот, променете го релевантниот ред од
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Многу краток опис --~~~~ | }}

кон

File:ИмеНаСликаОвде.jpg|{{/Promotion|Многу краток опис --Потпис на предлагачот |Зошто ви се допадна. --~~~~}}

Со други зборови, сменете го шаблонот од /Nomination на /Promotion и ставете свој потпис, и по можност, краток коментар.

  • Ако решите да ја одбиете номинацијата, променете го релевантниот ред од
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Многу краток опис --~~~~ | }}

кон

File:ИмеНаСликаОвде.jpg|{{/Decline|Многу краток опис --Потпис на предлагачот|Зошто не ви се допадна. --~~~~}}

Со други зборови, сменете го шаблонот од /Nomination на /Decline и ставете свој потпис, и по можност, да изјавите кој критериум сликата не го задоволува (можете да користите наслови од заглавјата во напатствијата). Ако сликата има многу проблеми, тогаш споменете само 2 до 3 најголеми проблема, или пак додајте multiple problems. Кога одбивате еден предлог морате да објасните причините на страницата за разговор на предлагачот - како правило, бидете фини и охрабрувачки! Во оваа порака треба да понудите поподробно објаснување на причините за вашетоодбивање на сликата.

Напомена: Оценувајте ги прво најстарите слики.


Период на мирување и унапредување

Доколку нема примедби во рок од 2 дена (точно: 48 часа) по оценувањето, сликата станува унапредена (избрана) или неуспешна, според добиените оценки. Ако имате примедба, само променете го статусот на Discuss и сликата ќе биде преместена во делот наречен Consensual review (Оценка по договор).


Како да донесете одлука

QICbot автоматски го средува ова 2 дена по донесувањето на одлуката, и избраните слики се складираат во Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted во исчекување на категоризација пред автоматски да се внесат во соодветните страници за Квалитетни слики.

Ако сметате дека сте пронашле исклучително добра слика достојна за статусот Избрана слика, тогаш предложете ја и на Кандидати за избрана слика.

  • Сликите во исчекување на оценување ја означуваат номинацијата со сино.
  • Сликите кои ги оценувачот ги прифатил ја означуваат номинацијата со зелено
  • Сликите кои ги оценувачот ги отфрлил ја означуваат номинацијата со зелено


Неоценети слики (номинација со сино)

Номинираните (предложените) слики кои не побудиле интерес за нивно оценување (било позитивно или негативно), или договор (еднаков број на негативни оценки колку и позитивни во договорниот процес) треба да се отстранат од страницата по 8 дена, да се архивираат во Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 17 2019 и на сликата да ѝ се додаде Category:Unassessed QI candidates.


Процес на оценување по договор

Оценувањето по договор (consensual review) е процес кој се применува во случаи каде горенаведената процедура не е доволна бара повеќе расправи и мислења.

Како да побарате оценување по договор

Ако сакате да побарате оценување по договор (consensual review), само променете го текстот /Promotion, /Decline во /Discuss и додајте го вашиот коментар веднаш под оценките. Потоа за еден ден автоматски бот ќе го премести ова во делот за оценување по договор.

Испраќајте слики за оценување по договор само слики кои веќе се поддржани/одбиени. Доколку, како оценувал, не можете да донесете одлука, тогаш додајте го својот коментар, но оставете го кандидатот на оваа страница.


Правила за оценување по договор

Видете Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Превчитување на страницата: 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]] 17:20, 17 јуни 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 17, 2019

June 16, 2019

June 15, 2019

June 14, 2019

June 13, 2019

June 12, 2019

June 11, 2019

June 10, 2019

June 9, 2019

June 8, 2019

June 7, 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:Abraham_Erb's_Grist_Mill.jpg

 

  • Предлог Abraham Erb's Grist Mill, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. --СССР 04:25, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Расправа
  •   Oppose Not sharp enough, sorry. --Tournasol7 06:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done: improved sharpness. --СССР 04:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Mobile phone shots are often not good enough for QI. This one has lots of sharpening artefacts and a general lack of detail.--Peulle 09:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good image and interesting motive -- Spurzem 11:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per others, and yes, the motif is great but isn't at issue. -- Ikan Kekek 00:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support per Spurzem. --Manfred Kuzel 08:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Blurring noise reduction kills details. This can not be fixed by oversharpening the original image, sorry. A pity,because the motif, composition, and lighting are really nice. --Smial 09:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Smial. It’s a pity, because subject and framing are good. --Aristeas 10:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 5 oppose → Decline?   --Aristeas 10:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Geneva_International_Motor_Show_2018,_Le_Grand-Saconnex_(1X7A0410).jpg

 

  • Предлог McLaren Senna at Geneva International Motor Show 2018 --MB-one 20:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Расправа
  •   Oppose I don't think a cropped image should be promoted --大诺史 12:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree. No rule against cropping. --MB-one 11:24, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The technical quality is fine, but I also have a problem with the composition; the subject isn't quite clear to me. It seems like it's a shot of the door, but also includes other things - but only partly. The half-cropped wheel in particular is a bit disturbing.--Peulle 09:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I do not see the supposedly serious lack of this detail. Incidentally, I remember photos of some critics who were less convincing and yet presented here as QI. -- Spurzem 11:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Crop and sharpness are OK, IMO. I'm assuming the penumbras are really purplish. -- Ikan Kekek 00:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support No problem--Moroder 09:27, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 00:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

File:2019-05-18_Fußball,_Frauen,_UEFA_Women's_Champions_League,_Olympique_Lyonnais_-_FC_Barcelona_StP_1076_LR10_by_Stepro.jpg

 

  • Предлог UEFA Women's Champions League, Olympique Lyonnais - FC Barcelona; celebration bei Olympique Lyonnais über das 0:4; Tor, goal --Stepro 03:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Расправа
  •   Oppose Too noisy IMO. --Tournasol7 04:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok to me. --Piotr Bart 17:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Also ok for me. However what are the names of the players? Woman at the right looks like Shanice van der Sanden --Michielverbeek 06:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Very good shot in spite of the noisy background. But also I would like to know the names of the women. -- Spurzem 11:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info Sorry, the names were only in the cats, I've added them to description. --Stepro 14:51, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Sharp enough, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek 00:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Ikan Kekek 00:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

File:OutDoor_2018,_Friedrichshafen_(1X7A0311).jpg

 

  • Предлог Mannequin at OutDoor 2018 --MB-one 10:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Uploaded new version. --MB-one 17:32, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Расправа
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. --大诺史 12:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Left crop, part of shoe is cut off.--Peulle 09:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 09:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Nappersdorf_Kellergasse_31.jpg

 

  • Предлог Objekt in der Kellergasse in Nappersdorf (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 03:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Расправа   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 03:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
      Oppose Distorted. --Tsungam 07:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
      Comment: Das ist nicht verzerrt, sondern leicht seitlich aufgenommen, weil eine Aufnahme der Front platzbedingt nicht möglich war. --Manfred Kuzel 05:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support --Moroder 09:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Seven Pandas 21:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

File:The-promised-neverland-logo.svg

 

  • Предлог Logo of anime The Promised Neverland --Vulphere 03:59, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Расправа
  •   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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 08:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Nappersdorf_Kellergasse_36.jpg

 

  • Предлог Objekt in der Kellergasse in Nappersdorf (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 02:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Расправа
  •   Support Good quality. --Uoaei1 04:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Weird patterns in the sky. --Tsungam 07:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Wie das bei bedecktem Himmel halt so ist. --Manfred Kuzel 11:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Yeah, what weird patterns? I see only clouds. Good quality to my eyes. -- Ikan Kekek 12:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • JPEG artifacts and/or banding --Tsungam 12:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Tsungam's right, there's definitely a banding effect visible, both in the sky, on the house wall and the door. It sort of looks like wallpaper; stripes going both horizontally and vertically, giving the whole image a tartan look.--Peulle 08:23, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Peulle and Tsungam. Looks really weird. Too strong s-curving or contrast rework in postprocessing? --Smial 08:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I see the banding now. It's very subtle but still shouldn't be there. -- Ikan Kekek 08:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Ikan Kekek 08:06, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Nappersdorf_Kellergasse_33.jpg

 

  • Предлог Objekt in der Kellergasse in Nappersdorf (Niederösterreich). --Manfred Kuzel 02:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Расправа
  •   SupportGood quality. ----
  • Don't know what happened here, but since there is no signature attached to this vote here now, I suppose it should be stricken.--Peulle 08:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I disagree. --Tsungam 07:14, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I can't say that the subject is clear here; the door is unsharp and the focus is on the foliage in the foreground. This is also quite a disturbing foreground object.--Peulle 08:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Object unsharp and mostly hidden. --Smial 08:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

File:FM_Santa_María_de_las_Misiones.svg

 

  • Предлог Logo of FM Santa María de las Misiones, Misiones Province, Argentina --Ezarate 22:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Расправа
  •   Oppose Not made by a wikimedian, only vectorised. Too simple. Bad tracing. --Piotr Bart 17:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree. --Ezarate 19:08, 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 08:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I'm not sure how much work is required by a Commoner for an image to be judged as "their own work", but in this case, I agree about the tracing. This image has jagged edges along the sides of the numbers, none of which appear in the logo on the original website.--Peulle 08:15, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per Peulle. --Smial 09:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

File:LU6RadioAtlanticaMDP-logo.svg

 

  • Предлог Logo of Radio Atlantica, Mar del Plata, Argentina --Ezarate 22:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Расправа
  •   Oppose Not made by a wikimedian, only vectorised. Bad tracing. --Piotr Bart 17:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree. --Ezarate 19:08, 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 08:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose OK, I did a little bit of research and have arrived at an opinion. If an admin tells me it's wrong according to official guidelines, I may change my mind, but otherwise it's a no. Here's the thing: the Commons:Derivative works page describes the official guideline when it comes to such matters, and generally, you need the copyrightholder's permission to copy the work onto Commons: "you cannot trace someone else's copyrighted creative drawing and upload that tracing to Commons under a new, free license because a tracing is a copy without new creative content". So, should the image be deleted from Commons altogether? I'm not so sure; if we look at a different copyrightable logo, that of M.K. Dons, it is generally accepted that: "the use of low-resolution images on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, of logos for certain uses involving identification and critical commentary may qualify as fair use ...". This here, however, is not a low-resolution image, because it's possible to enlarge it, so it may be argued that it should be deleted. However, that particular decision is above my pay grade and I shan't bother with it right now.--Peulle 10:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    •   Comment Exactly my thoughts when it comes to vectorizing low resolution "fair use" images. --Smial 15:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

File:LU9radioMDP-logo.svg

 

  • Предлог Logo of Lu9 Radio Mar del Plata --Ezarate 22:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Расправа
  •   Oppose Not made by a wikimedian, only vectorised. Bad tracing.--Piotr Bart 17:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree. --Ezarate 19:08, 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 08:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as explained.--Peulle 10:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

File:ClubAtleticoPolicialescudo-Catamarca.svg

 

  • Предлог Sword of Club Atletico Policial de Catamarca, Argentina --Ezarate 22:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Расправа
  •   Support Good quality. --Vulphere 02:49, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not made by a wikimedian, only vectorised. Bad tracing.--Piotr Bart 17:05, 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 08:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as explained.--Peulle 10:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

File:LV1_Radio_Colón_Logo.svg

 

  • Предлог Current Logo "LV1 Radio Columbus" in the province of San Juan in Argentina. --Ezarate 22:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Расправа
  •   Oppose Not made by a wikimedian, only vectorised. Too simple. Bad tracing. --Piotr Bart 17:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I disagree. --Ezarate 19:08, 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 08:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as explained.--Peulle 10:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Schwalbenschwanz_-_Schmetterling_IMG_2261.jpg

 

  • Предлог Schwalbenschwanz-Papilio machaon.--Fischer.H 09:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Расправа
      Support Good quality. --Aristeas 09:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
      Oppose Not sharp enough and grainy --Uoaei1 13:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The main object is sharp. -- Spurzem 15:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Per Spurzem --Cvmontuy 04:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support This is a butterfly and not an etching. It's "unsharp" by nature. --Stepro 03:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This is blurred Stepro, it is not unsharp by nature. Charlesjsharp 20:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Stepro 03:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

File:ClubCentralArgentinoOlimpicoCeres.svg

 

  • Предлог Logo of Club Central Argentino Olímpico.--Ezarate 00:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Расправа
  •   Support Good quality. --Vulphere 04:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bad tracing. --Piotr Bart 17:54, 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 08:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as explained.--Peulle 10:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

File:EscudoOlimpo.svg

 

  • Предлог Logo of Club Olimpo de Bahía Blanca --Ezarate 00:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Расправа
  •   Support Good quality. --Vulphere 04:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not made by a wikimedian, only vectorised. Bad tracing. --Piotr Bart 15:52, 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 08:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as explained.--Peulle 10:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Juventud_de_Pergamino.svg

 

  • Предлог Logo of Juventud de Pergamino --Ezarate 00:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Расправа
  •   Support Good quality. --Vulphere 04:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Bad tracing. --Piotr Bart 17:54, 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 08:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as explained.--Peulle 10:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Andes_Talleres.svg

 

  • Предлог Logo of Andes Talleres Sport Club --Ezarate 00:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Расправа
  •   Support Good quality. --Vulphere 04:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not made by a wikimedian, only vectorised. Bad tracing. --Piotr Bart 15:52, 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 08:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as explained.--Peulle 10:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Escudo_Oficial_Centro_Juventud_Antoniana.svg

 

  • Предлог Official shield of the Centro Juventud Antoniana --Ezarate 00:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Расправа
  •   Support Good quality. --Vulphere 04:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Not made by a wikimedian, only vectorised. Bad tracing.--Piotr Bart 15:52, 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 08:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as explained.--Peulle 10:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 08:13, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

File:BMW_440i_Coupe_M_Sport_GIIAS_2017.JPG

 

  • Предлог BMW 440i Coupe M Sport at Gaikindo Indonesian International Auto Show 2017 --Vulphere 07:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Расправа
  •   Support Good quality. --MB-one 09:02, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Background looks overprocessed --Cvmontuy 09:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Cvmontuy, though the car looks rather good. -- Ikan Kekek 07:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I have no problem with the background. Sometims I don't understand the arguments for decline. -- Spurzem 15:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose All humans somehow look artificial. --Stepro 03:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Perspective, lighting, noise resp. noise reduction. --Smial 10:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Stepro 03:26, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

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

 

  • Предлог Former barracks in Dülmen, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany --XRay 04:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Расправа
  •   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)
  •   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)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Aristeas 12:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Tour_of_Norway_2019_Drammen_(5).jpg

 

  • Предлог Officials' car during Tour of Norway 2019.--Peulle 07:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Расправа
  •   Support Good quality. --SH6188 12:17, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Composition: 80% road, 20% just a car. What's the point of that? --Palauenc05 22:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The reason is just that I wanted to show the car on the road the cyclists are riding on, rather than just a zoomed in shot of the car.--Peulle (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The picture does not show what it is supposed to say. Besides, the roof of the car is too bright. -- Spurzem 14:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - Both the picture and filename are acceptable to me. -- Ikan Kekek 00:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support It's not an excellent composition and technically it is far from perfect. However the small flags on the car show to me something special. --Michielverbeek 06:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Michielverbeek: The small flags might make the picture very valuable, though you can hardly recognize it. Bit is that why it is also a quality image? Sometimes I can only wonder about the evaluation criteria. -- Spurzem 09:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose agree other opposes. Seven Pandas 11:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The car is too fast for 1/200, so in my opinion the pic is now oversharpened. --Stepro 03:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Stepro 03:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)


Распоред (ден 8-ми по номинацијата)

нед 09 јун → пон 17 јун
пон 10 јун → вто 18 јун
вто 11 јун → сре 19 јун
сре 12 јун → чет 20 јун
чет 13 јун → пет 21 јун
пет 14 јун → саб 22 јун
саб 15 јун → нед 23 јун
нед 16 јун → пон 24 јун
пон 17 јун → вто 25 јун