Open main menu

Commons:Candidatas a Imagens de qualidade

This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Quality images candidates and the translation is 91% 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Outdated translations are marked like this.
Ir para as nomeações
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

Estas são as candidatas a tornarem-se Imagens de qualidade. Por favor, fique claro que não é o mesmo que Imagens especiais. Além disso, se você deseja obter informações sobre as suas imagens, pode consegui-las em Críticas fotográficas.

Contents

Objectivo

O objectico das Imagens de qualidade é incentivar as pessoas que são a base do Commons, os utilizadores individuais que fornecem imagens para ampliar esta colecção. Enquanto que as imagens especiais são as melhores de todas as imagens carregadas no Commons, as Imagens de qualidade servem para identificar e encorajar os esforços dos utilizadores para carregar imagens de qualidade no Commons.
Além disso, as imagens de qualidade podem ser um local onde outros utilizadores expliquem métodos para melhorar uma imagem.

Orientações

Todas as imagens nomeadas devem ser trabalho próprio dos utilizadores do Commons

Para os nomeadores

Abaixo estão as diretrizes gerais para Imagens de qualidade; outras orientações mais detalhadas estão disponíveis em Diretrizes de imagens.


Requisitos das imagens

  1. Status de direitos autorais. As candidatas a Imagens de qualidade foram carregadas no Commons pelo proprietário dos direitos autorais sob uma licença adequada. Os requisitos completos de licença estão disponíveis em COM:CT
  2. As imagens devem estar em conformidade com todas as políticas e práticas do Commons, e também com Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. As Imagens de qualidade devem possuir um nome de ficheiro significativo, ser devidamente categorizadas e ter uma descrição precisa na página do ficheiro em uma ou mais línguas. É preferível, mas não obrigatório, incluir uma descrição em inglês.
  4. Sem anúncios ou assinaturas na imagem. Os direitos de autor e informações de autoria devem ficar na página da imagem e podem estar nos metadados da imagem, mas não deve interferir no conteúdo da imagem.


Criador

As imagens devem ter sido criadas por um Wikimedista para serem elegíveis para o status de Imagem de qualidade. Isto significa que imagens, por exemplo, do Flickr, são inelegíveis. (Tenha em atenção que as Imagens especiais não têm este requisito.) Reproduções fotográficas de obras de arte bidimensionais, criadas por Wikimedistas, são elegíveis (e devem ser licenciadas como PD-old, de acordo com as diretrizes do Commons). Se uma imagem for promovida, apesar de não ter sido criada por um Wikimedista, o status de Imagem de qualidade deve ser removido assim que o erro for detectado.

Requisitos técnicos

Critérios mais detalhados estão disponíveis em Diretrizes de imagens.


Resolução

Imagens de bitmap (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) normalmente devem ter 2 megapixels; os revisores podem exigir mais para sujeitos que podem ser fotografados facilmente. Isso ocorre porque as imagens do Commons podem ser impressas, visualizadas em ecrãs com resolução muito alta ou utilizadas em futuras médias. Esta regra exclui gráficos vetoriais (SVG) e imagens geradas por computador e construídas ao utilizar um código-fonte com licença livre disponível na descrição da imagem.


Qualidade das imagens

As imagens digitais estão sujeitas a vários problemas resultantes da captura e processamento da imagem, tais como ruídos, problemas com a compressão JPEG, falta de informação de zonas ou realces, ou problemas com a captura de cores. Todas estas questões devem ser tratadas adequadamente.


Composição e iluminação

A disposição do objecto principal de uma imagem deve contribuir para a própria imagem. Objectos em segundo plano não devem desviar a atenção. A iluminação e o foco também devem contribuir para o resultado global; o objecto principal tem de se destacar, ser completo e estar bem exposto.


Valor

Nosso principal objectivo é melhorar a qualidade das imagens que contribuem para o Wikicommons, algo valioso para os projectos da Wikimedia.


Como nomear

Basta adicionar uma linha deste formulário no topo da lista de candidatos da secção de Nomeações.

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Breve descrição  --~~~~ |}}

A descrição deve ser não mais do que algumas palavras, e por favor deixe uma linha em branco entre sua nova entrada e as demais.

Se está a indicar uma imagem de outro Wikimedista, inclua seu nome de utilizador na descrição, como abaixo

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Breve descrição  --~~~~ |}}

Nota: existe um gadget, QInominator, que torna as nomeações mais rápidas. Ele adiciona uma pequena ligação "Nominate this image for QI" no topo de cada página de ficheiro. Ao clicar na ligação, ela adiciona a imagem a uma lista de potenciais candidatas. Quando esta lista estiver concluída, edite Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. Na parte superior da janela de edição, uma barra verde será exibida. Clicar na barra insere todas as potenciais candidatas na janela de edição.


Número de nomeações

A descrição deve ser não mais do que algumas palavras, e por favor deixe uma linha em branco entre sua nova entrada e as demais. A adição de mais de um par de imagens de uma só vez pode ser considerado flooding, o que é desaprovado.


Avaliando as imagens

Qualquer utilizador registado pode revisar um nomeação.
Quando um revisor avalia uma imagem deve considerar as mesmas diretrizes do nomeador.


Como revisar

Como actualizar o status

Examine cuidadosamente a imagem. Abre-a na resolução máxima, e veja se ela atende aos critérios de qualidade.

  • Se você decidir promover a nomeação, altere a linha relevante de
Image:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Breve descrição --~~~~ |}}

para

Image:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Breve descrição --Assinatura do nomeador |Por que você gostou. --~~~~}}

Em outras palavras, altere a predefinição de /Nomination para /Promotion e adicione a sua assinatura, possivelmente com algum pequeno comentário.

  • Se você decidir rejeitar a nomeação, altere a linha relevante de
Image:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Breve descrição --~~~~ |}}

para

Image:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Breve descrição --Assinatura do nomeador |Por que você não gostou --~~~~}}

Em outras palavras, altere a predefinição de /Nomination para /Decline e adicione a sua assinatura, possivelmente declarando os critérios pelos quais a imagem fracassou (podes usar os títulos das secções de diretrizes). Se houver muitos problemas, notifique os 2 ou 3 mais graves, ou adicione múltiplos problemas. Ao rejeitar uma nomeação, por favor, explique as razões na página de discussão do nomeador - em regra, seja agradável e estimulante! Na mensagem, você deve dar uma explicação mais detalhada de sua decisão.

Nota: Por favor, avalie primeiramente as imagens mais antigas.


Período de tolerância e promoção

Se não houver objecções no período de 2 dias (exactamente 48 horas) desde a sua revisão, a imagem será promovida ou rejeitada, de acordo com a revisão que recebeu. Se você possuir objecções, mova a imagem para a secção Consensual review.


Como executar uma decisão

QICbot trabalha automaticamente nisso 2 dias depois de a decisão ter sido tomada, e as imagens promovidas são armazenadas em Promovidas recentemente à espera de categorização e inserção automática em uma página apropriada das Imagens de qualidade.

Se acha que identificou uma imagem excepcional que merece o status de Imagem especial, então a nomeie também em Commons:Candidatas a imagens especiais.

  • As imagens que esperam uma revisão são mostradas em uma caixa azul
  • As imagens que o revisor aceitou são mostradas em uma caixa verde
  • As imagens que o revisor rejeitou são mostradas em uma caixa vermelha


Imagens não avaliadas (quadro azul)

As imagens nomeadas que não foram promovidas nem rejeitadas, ou que acabaram em consenso (que haja um número igual de oposições e apoios) após 8 dias nesta página devem ser removidas desta página sem promoção, armazenadas em Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives July 20 2019 e a categoria Unassessed QI candidates acrescentada à imagem.


Processo de revisão de consenso

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.

Como pedir uma revisão consensual

Para pedir uma revisão consensual, basta alterar /Promotion ou /Decline para /Discuss, e adicionar o seu comentário imediatamente após a revisão. Um bot automático irá movê-lo para a secção de revisão consensual dentro de um dia.

Por favor, somente envie coisas para a revisão consensual que foram revisadas como promovidas/rejeitadas. Se, como revisor, você não pode tomar uma decisão, adicione seu comentário, mas deixe o candidato nesta página.


Regras de revisão consensual

Veja Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules.

Actualização da página: 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]] 03h05min, 20 julho 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 20, 2019

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

 

  • Nomeação Capital of a Roman column on the outside of the museum at Utica --Kritzolina 07:01, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussão
  •   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)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Seven Pandas 01:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Asphalt_crew_Drammen_2019_(7).jpg

 

  • Nomeação Asphalt crew at a construction site in Drammen.--Peulle 06:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussão
  •   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

 

  • Nomeação Asphalt crew at a construction site in Drammen.--Peulle 06:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussão
  •   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

 

  • Nomeação The Northeastern Corner Round Tower, Tobolsk Kremlin, Russia. --СССР 00:15, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussão
  •   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)
  •   Oppose Still too dark for me. --Rbrechko 23:57, 19 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

 

  • Nomeação Water Critical Mass event on Vistula River in Kraków --Jakubhal 20:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Promoção
  •   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)
Total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 00:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

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

 

  • Nomeação Hudson Hornet of 1954, Helsinki, Finnland --Poco a poco 13:22, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussão
  •   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

 

  • Nomeação 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)
  •   Support QI for me. --Rbrechko 00:00, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose →   Promoted   --Seven Pandas 00:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Promoção {{{2}}}

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

 

  • Nomeação Prefecture of Haut-Rhin without light in Colmar (Haut-Rhin, France). --Gzen92 12:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussão   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

 

  • Nomeação Saint Remaclus, statue in the parish church of Waldorf in Vinxtbachtal Spurzem 17:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussão
      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

 

  • Nomeação 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)
  • Rejeição
  •   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 00:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

File:PuertoPuntadelEste-jul2019.4.jpg

 

  • Nomeação View of Punta del Este, Uruguay --Ezarate 22:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Discussão *  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

 

  • Nomeação Newhall Pass interchange. (by Junkyardsparkle)- Fluffy89502 04:36, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Rejeição   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)
Total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 6 oppose →   Declined   --Seven Pandas 00:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)


Tabela de tempo (8 dias após a nomeação)

sex 12 jul. → sáb 20 jul.
sáb 13 jul. → dom 21 jul.
dom 14 jul. → seg 22 jul.
seg 15 jul. → ter 23 jul.
ter 16 jul. → qua 24 jul.
qua 17 jul. → qui 25 jul.
qui 18 jul. → sex 26 jul.
sex 19 jul. → sáb 27 jul.
sáb 20 jul. → dom 28 jul.