Open main menu

Commons:Kandydatury do grafik wysokiej jakości

This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Quality images candidates and the translation is 41% 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Outdated translations are marked like this.
Przejdź do nominacji
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

Na tej stronie znajdują się kandydatury do grafik wysokiej jakości. Proszę nie mylić grafik wysokiej jakości z grafikami na medal. Additionally, if you just want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at Commons:Photography critiques.

Contents

Cel

The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. 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.

Wytyczne

Wszystkie nominowane zdjęcia muszą być stworzone przez jednego z użytkowników Wikimedia Commons.

Dla nominujących

Poniżej znajdują się ogólne wytyczne dotyczące jakości zdjęcia, bardziej szczegółowe kryteria dostępny w linku Image guidelines (en).


Wymagania co do strony
  1. Prawa autorskie. Grafika wysokiej jakości musi być przesłana do Commons pod właściwą licencją. Pełne wymagania co do licencji dostępne są na stronie oznaczenia licencji.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Grafika wysokiej jakości powinna mieć wyrazistą nazwę, być odpowiednio skategoryzowana oraz mieć na stronie pliku opis w jednym lub więcej językach. Mile widziany, ale nie obowiązkowy, jest opis w języku angielskim.
  4. Grafika nie może zawierać reklam ani podpisów autora. Informacja o prawach autorskich i twórcy zawiera się na stronie opisu grafiki. Może także znaleźć się w metadanych pliku. Nie powinna jednak zawierać się w treści grafiki.


Twórca

Zdjęcia muszą być utworzone przez jednego z użytkowników Wikimedia Commons. Oznacza, to że zdjęcia z serwisów takich jak Flickr nie będą mogły uzyskać statusu grafiki wysokiej jakości (w przypadku grafik na medal nie ma takiego ograniczenia). 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.

Wymagania techniczne

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.


Rozdzielczość

Obrazy rastrowe (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) muszą mieć rozdzielczość przynajmniej 2 Mpx. Oceniający mogą zwrócić się do autora o plik w większej rozdzielczości, jeśli obiekt na zdjęciu może być względnie łatwo sfotografowany ponownie. Wymóg ten wynika z tego, że grafiki z Commons mogą być drukowane, oglądanie na monitorach o wysokiej rozdzielczości lub wykorzystywane w inny sposób.


Wysoka jakość

Digital images can suffer various problems originating in image capture and processing, such as preventable noise, problems with JPEG compression, lack of information in shadow or highlight areas, or problems with capture of colors. All these issues should be handled correctly.


Kompozycja i oświetlenie

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.


Wartość

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


Jak nominować

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

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Bardzo krótki opis  --~~~~ |}}

Opis powinien być nie dłuższy niż kilka słów. Prosimy pozostawić pustą linię pomiędzy twoją a poprzednią nominacją.

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]]) --~~~~ |}}

Informacja: istnieje gadżet, QInominator, ułatwiający nominowanie grafik. 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.


Liczba nominacji

Carefully select your best images to nominate. No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.


Ocenianie grafik

Każdy zarejestrowany użytkownik może recenzować grafiki
When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.


Jak oceniać?

Jak zaktualizować status

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

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

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from
File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description --~~~~ | }}

to

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

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator’s talk page – as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first and, if possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.


Grace period and promotion

If there are no objections in period of 2 days (exactly: 48 hours) from review, the image becomes promoted or fails, according to the review it received. If you have objection, just change its status to Discuss and it will be moved to the Consensual review section.


Jak wykonać decyzję

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


Nieocenione zdjęcia (nominacja zakreślona na niebiesko)

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 26 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.


Zasady dyskusji

Zobacz Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Rules

Odśwież stronę: 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]] 10:53, 26 czerwiec 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 26, 2019

June 25, 2019

June 24, 2019

June 23, 2019

June 22, 2019

June 21, 2019

June 20, 2019

June 19, 2019

June 18, 2019

June 17, 2019

June 16, 2019

June 15, 2019

June 14, 2019

June 11, 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:Egan_Chute_panorama.jpg

 

  • Nomination Egan Chute, Ontario, Canada. --СССР 00:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 01:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
      Oppose I think the quality is not there. JPG artifacts, strong CA --Podzemnik 01:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Egan_Chute_panorama1.jpg

 

  • Nomination Egan Chute, Ontario, Canada. --СССР 00:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion   Support Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 01:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
      Oppose I think the quality is not there. JPG artifacts, strong CA --Podzemnik 01:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Πάρκο_Γκιουέλ_2782.jpg

 

  • Nomination Tower of the smaller entrance building (Parc Güell). --C messier 18:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion Too noisy, especially at the foot of the tower. --Jacek79 22:37, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
    OK for me. --Vengolis 01:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
      Support Good to me too --Podzemnik 02:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
      Support Das Foto könnte etwas aufgehellt werden, aber dennoch noch O.K. für mich. --Manfred Kuzel 09:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Διδακτήριο_Άνω_Αρχανών_2600_-_2601.jpg

 

  • Nomination Archanes old school. --C messier 18:14, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Support Good quality. --Vengolis 01:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
      Oppose Lots of CA, the colours are kind of dull --Podzemnik 02:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Noctilucent-clouds-msu-6813.jpg

 

  • Nomination Noctilucent clouds in Laboe, Germany --Matthias Süßen 09:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
      Comment Looks oversaturated --Podzemnik 01:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
      CommentI uploaded a new, less saturated version. --Matthias Süßen 06:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose CA. --Smial 09:29, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
      Comment I uploaded a new version without CAs. --Matthias Süßen 09:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Luxembourg_City,_Hollerich_–_école_et_place_de_jeux_2019a.jpg

 

  • Nomination Luxembourg City, school with playground. --Cayambe 10:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Hard to see the chruch with those trees in the foreground --Poco a poco 13:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC) I see a high quality images of a schoolyard with a playground and some tree. The school building is partially obscured by trees, but its not a quality problem imo. Clearly QI imo.--~~~~   Comment Moved to Consensual Review after one negative comment (but not an 'oppose/decline') and one (unsigned) positive review. See above. --Cayambe 15:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC) Sorry, it was my signature.   Support--ArildV 18:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
      Support Per ArildV, good quality for me. --Manfred Kuzel 09:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Iglesia_de_El_Sagrario,_Quito,_Ecuador,_2015-07-22,_DD_104.JPG

 

  • Nomination Church of the Tabernacle, Quito, Ecuador --Poco a poco 07:27, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Oppose Noisy, not very sharp probably camera shake. Sorry --Moroder 06:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   New version Poco a poco 13:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment It's better now but on top still blurred --Moroder 17:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Both sharpness issues after perspective correction and high ISO noise issues of the high resolution Canon 5D R could be addressed by meaningful downscaling after other image processing is finished. Unfortunately this is strictly forbidden at QIC... --Smial 12:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, I'd probably be banned from the Wikimedia movement for at least 10 years if I dare such a think, criminals must be punished! :) Poco a poco 17:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
    Most of my images are downscaled. For reasons. --Smial 18:30, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question Just out of couriosity. I guess you used a tripod, but than why ISO 1250? If not you must have a firm hand with exposure time 1/10 nonetheless there is I guess a shake blur on top. Cheers --Moroder 06:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
    The camera was of course handheld, otherwise I'd have used ISO 100 Poco a poco 17:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 12:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Rheinland-Pfalz,_Ludwigshafen_am_Rhein,_Landschaftsschutzgebiet_07-LSG-7314-013,_Rehbock_002.jpg

 

  • Nomination Male european roe deer. --TheSyndicate94 09:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   SupportGood quality. --Manfred Kuzel 10:53, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose unsharp, motion blur. Charlesjsharp 17:37, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles.--Peulle 21:30, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles. --Cayambe 06:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Cayambe 06:57, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Rheinland-Pfalz,_Ludwigshafen_am_Rhein,_Landschaftsschutzgebiet_07-LSG-7314-013,_Storch_Landung_004.jpg

 

  • Nomination European white stork (Ciconia ciconia) landing on a tree. --TheSyndicate94 12:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --MB-one 15:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Opposeunsharp and branches in the way. Charlesjsharp 17:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Charlesjsharp: Another stork was on the tree when I first saw it. The stork flew away so I waited and hoped for the next one to land. The branches are there on purpose. I could have moved one meter to the front and the branches wouldn't be there. This is evident in the picture. I added them for composition purposes. It just looks way better in my humble opinion. I took ten photos when the next one landed and while it tried to keep it's balance. Furthermore this was shot with manual focus on the "tree top", since I didn't want the autofocus to jump between the branches and the stork. The sharpness is sufficient imho for a moving object with manual focus and the resources I have (this isn't a top of the line lens). You can read the numbers on the leg band. --TheSyndicate94 14:44, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Nice! Please put the taxa name in the file description.--Moroder 11:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks --Moroder 07:47, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but the branches are not my concept of good composition. And presumably they stopped you using autofocus may be why it is blurred. Also 1/500 sec not fast enough to freeze motion blur. Higher ISO and higher shutter speed woul be better IMO. Charlesjsharp 16:53, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support The branches don't bother me, they are part of the natural environment. Sharp enough imo. --Cayambe 06:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Milseburg 12:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Wikinoticias_Francia_2019_logo.svg

 

  • Nomination Spanish Wikinews' logo for the 2018 FIFA Women's World Cup. By User:Ignoratum --Ezarate 00:09, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Support Good quality. --MB-one 15:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Insufficient quality. --Piotr Bart 21:42, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Piotr Bart: please elaborate. --MB-one 16:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Too simple for a QI --Milseburg 12:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 12:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

File:Monument_morts_Romanèche_Hautecourt_Romanèche_7.jpg

 

  • Nomination War memorial of Romanèche in Hautecourt-Romanèche, France. --Chabe01 20:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •   Comment No FOP in France,sorry --Moroder 03:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose --Moroder 10:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Good quality. --Piotr Bart 21:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info Possible no FOP in France. I can't found the authors of this monument... but if it is no FOP it have to delete all photos from this category. Tournasol7 14:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment I guess the monument was made after 1945, therefore the artist should be dead before 1949 which is very unlikly imo --Moroder 09:06, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 12:39, 24 June 2019 (UTC)


Harmonogram (dzień 8 po nominacji)

Wt 18 cze → Śr 26 cze
Śr 19 cze → Cz 27 cze
Cz 20 cze → Pt 28 cze
Pt 21 cze → So 29 cze
So 22 cze → N 30 cze
N 23 cze → Pn 01 lip
Pn 24 cze → Wt 02 lip
Wt 25 cze → Śr 03 lip
Śr 26 cze → Cz 04 lip