Commons:优质图像评选

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Quality images candidates and the translation is 98% 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Outdated translations are marked like this.
Shortcut
跳至提名

下列图像正在参评优质图像。 请注意,这与特色图片不同。 如果您只是想为自己的摄影作品征求些非正式的反馈意见,请前往Commons:Photography critiques

目的

优质图像旨在鼓励维基共享资源的根基——个人用户——为共享资源贡献独特的图像。 “特色图像”被认定是维基共享资源所有图像中最好的图片,而“优质图像”目的则是认可和鼓励用户为维基共享资源提供优质图像作出的努力。 此外,如果用户想了解如何改善自己的图片,优质图像也可用来参考。


指引

所有的候选图像都应是本站用户的工作成果。

如何提名

以下是优质图片的一般性准则,更详细的指引可见图像指引

图像页面要求

  1. 版权状态。参与评选的优质图像需以合适的版权协议上传至维基共享资源。完整的版权协议要求在Commons:著作权标签
  2. 图像应对符合所有的共享资源方针和惯例,包括Commons:可辨识的人物照片
  3. 优质图像的文件名必须有意义分类必须恰当,文件页的图像描述(至少一种语言)必须准确。我们建议给图像撰写英文描述,但这不是强制性要求。
  4. 优质图像严禁广告宣传和签名。优质图像的版权和作者信息应当记录在文件页,也可以放在文件的元数据中,但不应直接出现在图像本身里。

作者
Proposed wording changes to specifically exclude AI generate media from being eligable for QI see discussion

图片原作者必须为维基媒体用户,以确保拥有优质图像的资格。这意味着来自诸如Flicker的图片不符合资格。(需注意特色图片无此要求) 维基媒体用户制作的二维艺术品的摄影复制品符合评选资格(并应根据共享资源指引以PD-old授权)。 如果有非维基人创作的图像通过评选,应在发现错误后尽快将改图像从“优质图像”中除名。


技术要求

请参阅Commons:图像指引了解更详细的标准。

分辨率

通常情况下,点阵图(如JPEG、PNG、GIF、TIFF)应至少有200万像素。如果摄影对象很容易捕捉,评审者可依情况要求候选图像分辨率比200万像素更高。这是因为人们可能打印、用高分辨率显示器查看或进一步使用共享资源上的图像。矢量图(SVG)和自由版权或开源软件生成图像不受本规则的限制。

图像质量

数字图像在图像捕捉和处理的过程中可能出现种种问题,比如可避免的躁点、JPEG图像压缩、亮部与暗部图像不明晰、颜色捕捉不准确等。候选图片不应存在任何这类问题。

构图和照明

摄影主体的排布应当有助于展示图像内容。前景、背景的物件不应分散观赏者的注意力。光照、焦距也应安排恰当,让摄影主体锐利、整洁,曝光得恰到好处。

价值

我们的主要目标是鼓励在维基共享资源里上传优质图像,帮助提升各维基媒体计划和其他计划的质量。

提名方法

您只需在Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list“提名”(Nominations)一节中加入类似如下的代码:

File:文件名.jpg|{{/Nomination|简短描述  --~~~~ |}}

图片描述不应该超过几句话。请在您的新提名和已存在的提名之间保留一个空行。

如果您打算提名其他维基媒体用户的图像,请仿照下方格式,在提名中提及原创作者的用户名:

File:文件名.jpg|{{/Nomination|简短描述(作者:[[User:用户名|用户名]])--~~~~ |}}

注意:使用“优质图像提名工具(QInominator)”这个小工具可以提高提名的效率。 该工具会在所有文件页顶部加入“提名此图像为优质图像”(Nominate this image for QI)按钮。点击按钮后,该图像会被加到您的优质图像候选列中。您遴选完后,请编辑Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list,编辑框上方会出现一个绿色横幅,点击该横幅会将您候选列中的全部候选图片批量加入到编辑框里。

提名数目

每位用户一天最多提名五张图像。

注:请每提名一副图像后,尽量评审至少一副其他用户提名的图像。

评审图像

任何注册10天、编辑50笔以上的注册用户,除作者和提名者外,都可以进行评审。QICvote小工具可以加快您的评审进程。

在评审图像时,评审者应与提名者遵守同一图像指引

如何评审

如何更新状态

仔细评估图像,以完全分辨率打开,并检查其是否符合质量标准

  • 如果您认为该图像符合优质图像的标准,请将对应图像的代码从
File:文件名.jpg|{{/Nomination|简短描述 --~~~~ |}}

改为

File:文件名.jpg|{{/Promotion|简短描述 --提名者签名 |喜欢它的理由。 --~~~~}}

也就是说,将模板的/Nomination改为/Promotion,并附上您的签名。您还可以加入一些简要的评论。

  • 如果您认为该图像不符合优质图像的标准,请将对应图像的代码从
File:文件名.jpg|{{/Nomination|简短描述 --~~~~ |}}

改为

File:文件名.jpg|{{/Decline|简短描述 --提名者签名 |不喜欢它的理由。 --~~~~}}

也就是说,将模板的/Nomination改为/Decline,并附上您的签名。您还可以加入一些简要的评论,指明为何该图像不符合标准(可以引用指引里的章节标题)。 如果图像存在多个问题,请只点出2-3个最明显的问题,或者留言“多个问题”。在指明图像不达标时,请在提名人的讨论页里解释为何您认为图像不符合标准——请记得遵守规则,保持友善、鼓励他人!讨论页里的留言应详细阐述您做出“图像不达标”这一决定的原因。

注:请优先评审最早的图片提名。

宽限期与评审通过方式

自候选图像获得的第一个评审起计算,2天(48小时)内如没有反对意见,该图像将依照该评审意见自动记为合格或不合格。如果您有反对意见,只需将候选图像的状态改为“讨论”(Discuss),这样候选图像会被自动列入“共识评审”(Consensual review)一节。

执行决定

QICbot会在评审决定完成后2日内自动运作,将获选图像列入Commons:Quality Images/Recently promoted中。这些图像随后会被分类并加入到合适的优质图像页面。

如果您留意到有些图像质量极为优秀,请考虑提名特色图像

人工操作说明 (仅限紧急情况下使用)

如果当选优质图片,

  1. 将图像加入优质图像页面合适的组别(可以有多个组别),以及这些组别对应的子页面。主页面应只保留3至4张最新图像。
  2. 在当选图像的文件页底部挂{{QualityImage}}模板。
  3. 将提名辞、评审结果存档到Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives 11月 2024
  4. {{File:当选图像文件名.jpg}}加入到用户的讨论页。

如果落选优质图片,

  1. 将提名辞、评审结果存档到Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives 11月 2024
  • 等待评审的图像,其评审信息用蓝色边框标示。
  • 评审者认定合格的图像,其评审信息用绿色边框标示。
  • 评审者认为不合格的图像,其评审信息用红色边框标示。

无评审结果的图像(用蓝框标注)

如果在提名开始后的8日内,候选图像没有得到任何支持/反对票,或在共识评审中未能达成共识,该图像将不会被列入优质图像中,而是从候选列表中移除、存档至Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives November 11 2024,并列入Category:Unassessed QI candidates

共识评审过程

共识评审(Consensual review)是指在以上步骤不足以达成共识的情况下所进行的讨论,以吸引更多人加入并给出自己的评审意见。

如何发起共识评审

如需发起共识评审,只需将代码中的/Promotion, /Decline改为/Discuss,并在评审文字后加入您的评论。机器人会在一日内将该讨论移入共识评审区。

只有处于“promoted”或“declined”状态下的讨论才能被记入共识评审中。如果评审员无法做出决定,可以只留评论但不明确表态提名通过与否。

共识评审规则

Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

刷新页面: purge this page's cache

Nominations

Due to the Mediawiki parser code ~~~~ signatures will only work on this page if you have JavaScript enabled. If you do not have JavaScript enabled please manually sign with:

--[[User:yourname|yourname]] 04:44, 11 11月 2024 (UTC)
  • Please open a new date section if you are nominating an image after 0:00 o'clock (UTC)
  • Please insert 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 you see terms with which you are unfamiliar, please see explanations at Photography terms
Please nominate no more than 5 images per day and try to review on average as many images as you nominate (check here to see how you are doing).


November 11, 2024

November 10, 2024

November 09, 2024

November 08, 2024

November 07, 2024

November 06, 2024

November 05, 2024

November 04, 2024

November 03, 2024

November 02, 2024

November 01, 2024

October 31, 2024

October 30, 2024

October 29, 2024

October 28, 2024

October 27, 2024

October 26, 2024

October 24, 2024

October 23, 2024

October 22, 2024

October 21, 2024

October 17, 2024

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".



File:Puente_de_Sheikh_Jaber_Al-Ahmad_Al-Sabah,_ciudad_de_Kuwait,_Kuwait,_2024-08-12,_DD_17.jpg

  • Nomination Sheikh Jaber Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah Bridge, Kuwait City, Kuwait --Poco a poco 07:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Image is stretched out horizontally. ReneeWrites 08:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ New version --Poco a poco 19:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • The image has been cropped, but it still looks stretched out horizontally to me, especially on the left side. ReneeWrites 16:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I disagree, I already applied a change of the aspect ratio although I hadn't applied a persepctive correcion. It's a wide angle shot, everything looking normal IMHO. Please, let's discuss. --Poco a poco 15:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Perspective and aspect ratio seem perfectly fine to me. Sharpness is adequate for f/11 which was chosen for a good reason. --Plozessor 05:16, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 14:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

File:2016-2019_Mazda_Axela_Sport_SKYACTIV-G_1.5_rear.jpg

  • Nomination 2016 Mazda Axela Sport SKYACTIV-G 1.5 --TTTNIS 12:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Peulle 12:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose 'm not impressed with the whitened license plate and the too dark area around the wheels. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 16:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per spurzem. --Smial 11:05, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Too dark, probably fixable with better raw conversion. Would appreciate if the license plate wouldn't be retouched. I would not decline it due to the whitened license plate though (but then it should get a "Retouched" template). --Plozessor 12:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

File:2018-2023_Toyota_Alphard_GF_rear.jpg

  • Nomination Rear view of 2018 Toyota Alphard GF --TTTNIS 12:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Peulle 12:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The white car in the background on the left is very distracting. Above all, there is hardly any contrast between it and the main object. The area around the wheels could be brighter. Also, I can't tell if a headlight is extending into the side or if it is a dark indentation. For me, the photo is not a quality image. But please let us hear what others say. -- Spurzem 14:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. --Smial 11:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. --Plozessor 12:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Kamp-Lintfort,_St._Josef,_2024-10_CN-01.jpg

  • Nomination Catholic St. Joseph's Church in Kamp-Lintfort, Germany. --Carschten 15:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality --Berthold Werner 15:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The tower looks too distorted and the east side is too dark. Please compare this version. In my opinion, the image proposed for evaluation is not a QI. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 17:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me.--Tournasol7 07:24, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok for me. --Plozessor 12:40, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --Sebring12Hrs 13:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Hallo Tournasol7, Plozessor and Sebring12Hrs, it is interesting to see: If the vertical lines are vertical, the photo is a QI, no matter how distorted it is otherwise. Best regards -- Spurzem 19:56, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Please.... Every perspective correction distords buildings, in this case I don't see a big distorsion. --Sebring12Hrs 22:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

File:At_Ruislip_Lido_2024_022.jpg

  • Nomination Coach for transporting baby carriers at Ruislip Lido --Mike Peel 07:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment DoF issue ? --Sebring12Hrs 09:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review, which DoF issue are you seeing? Both 403 and 303 in fg/bg of the subject are relatively sharp? Thanks. Mike Peel 19:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. DoF is sufficient. --Tagooty 08:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I disgree, the subject is blurred in the background. --Sebring12Hrs 13:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per Tagooty. --Plozessor 12:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I would probably have chosen a slightly longer focal length and a slightly different camera position, but considering the image resolution, I don't see any problems with the depth of field. Perfectly ok for an A4 or larger print. --Smial 14:26, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Westmount_Public_Library_by_Rodrigo_Tetsuo_Argenton_(02).jpg

  • Nomination Westmount Public Library greenhouse --Rodrigo.Argenton 09:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Needs a white balance adjustment ReneeWrites 10:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree; this is not a quality "issue", and also it is very similar light of the moment. Rodrigo.Argenton 13:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Color balance could be a bit colder, but it's also ok as it is. Unfortunately there is no EXIF data and we don't know at which time of day the picture was taken, the yellowish hue might even be realistic. --Plozessor 05:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment EXIF data says the picture was last edited at 11:39, though I'm unsure if that meant that's when the picture was taken. Another photo of the same set is at File:Westmount Public Library by Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton (04).jpg which shows a similar (though stronger) yellow hue. It's not realistic lighting even if the place was basking in morning/evening glow. And I'm not saying the yellow hue needs to be removed entirely, but I do think it should be adjusted. ReneeWrites 10:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  • You already gave your opinion; why are you here again giving the same unfounded opinion?
"last edited at 11:39" No, it means that it was exported at 11:39...
It is adjusted by what I was seeing; this is not an unrealistic light, and your invalidation of the photo is because of that; you are talking about things that you clearly do not know. E.g. the " last edited at 11:39"
The other photo is not being evaluated, even if it was not unrealistic or close to declassification as a QI.
And what is that? >>>> https://fortune.com/2023/06/08/how-long-will-smoke-new-york-city-air-quality-last/ <<<< Ow, even worst yellow photo near date and location, by the same reason... ow well. Soooo not "realistic lighting " in a newspaper, ow well. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 00:05, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 08:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Morning_Glory_Pool_Yellowstone_NP_Wyoming_2024.jpg

  • Nomination Morning Glory Pool hot spring in Yellowstone National Park Wyoming --Nv8200pa 13:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Bad crop, low res, CA --Poco a poco 18:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Low res? The original file is 3,001 × 2,000 pixels, file size: 7.28 MB. Bad crop? Compare to File:Morning Glory Pool 2017 02.jpg, File:Morning Glory Pool 2017 06.jpg and File:Morning Glory Pool 2017 03.jpg (imo are badly cropped} which are quality images. What does the resolution need to be and what would be a better crop? Nv8200pa 12:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Resolution is IMO ok. But the left and right edges are cropped off. Also it would look better with perspective correction, but such is not possible because of the tight crop. --Plozessor 05:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Almost all recent images (~100) in the CAT crop the pool. I suppose the viewpoint from the boardwalk does not allow a full view. This image was taken with a 12mm lens. I find the very minor crops to be acceptable.
  •  Oppose CA and scaled down to a quarter of the sensor's resolution. I have no objection to a certain amount of downscaling if difficult shooting conditions or perspective corrections make this necessary. But if photos in native sensor resolution are rejected here because they are not pixel sharp right down to every corner of the image, I think it would be very unfair to promote this candidate. --Smial 14:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CAs everywhere... Come on... --Sebring12Hrs 00:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Tagooty 08:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Bisi_Adeleye_Fayemi_01.svg

File:Bisi Adeleye Fayemi 01.svg

  • Nomination Portrait of Bisi Adeleye Fayemi. --Indrajitdas 11:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Lvova 13:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unnecessary space on the sides and bottom that should be cropped out, no background behind the subject itself rendering it practically invisible on dark backgrounds, lots of stray artifacting. This appears to be the result of Illustrator's auto-trace tool applied to a photo. --ReneeWrites 22:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Renee, plus I think that the tracing didn't go very well and does not really resemble the person as she is looking on the original photo. --Plozessor 05:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per others. --Smial 11:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose File is missing --PantheraLeo1359531 20:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --PantheraLeo1359531 20:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

File:ARINA_HENDRIKA,_Cargo_ship,_ENI_02203863,_MMSI_244131479._15-07-2024._(actm.)_01.jpg

  • Nomination ARINA HENDRIKA Cargo ship, ENI 02203863, MMSI 244131479. Location Groote Brekken. Princess Margriet Canal. --Agnes Monkelbaan 05:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Reluctantly opposed. Sharp but light is not the best and there is background clutter that does not show the ship well. To better isolate the ship, suggest you find a bridge (or any other high perspective) that overlooks the canal (minimizes background clutter) and use a longer lens (100mm – 150mm) to shorten the length on these long barge ships. --GRDN711 17:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately must agree with GRDN711, the ship doesn't stand out from the background. Also the shadows are pretty noisy. --Plozessor 16:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 09:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Capitolio,_Toulouse,_Francia,_2023-01-06,_DD_120-122_HDR.jpg

  • Nomination Capitolio, Toulouse, Francia, 2023-01-06 (by Poco a poco) --Sebring12Hrs 02:27, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Needs a more precise description/CATs --Tagooty 02:44, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't understand what do you want more than Category:Capitole de Toulouse and English: Capitole, Toulouse, France Español: Capitolio, Toulouse, Francia ? --Sebring12Hrs 13:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Good questions, I'm also curious --Poco a poco 18:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
  • The entire building has many views and parts, see the many subCATs in the CAT. This looks like a partial view of the front. --Tagooty 12:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I disagree, those cats are there for details views of balconies, gates or whatever, this images shows most of the building, adding addtional categories of what you can see there makes no sense to me --Poco a poco 22:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Adding CAT is not needed. A better description is needed, IMO, as per QI guidelines. --Tagooty 01:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
  • This is a dead end. I move to CR. The description is IMHO good enough as it states exactly what you see. I can add the architect, the year of construction, the size and so one, but that would go too far. --Poco a poco 18:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I disagree -- the image is a partial view of the front facade, not the entire building. The description should reflect this. Let's hear other opinions. --Tagooty 00:57, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I added Category:Capitole de Toulouse by night. @Poco a poco:​, I think we could edit a bit the description like that : "English: Capitole facade from place du Capitole by night, Toulouse, France". But this is your decision. --Sebring12Hrs 10:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Everbody can edit the files. As soon as it becomes QI I'll add more description Poco a poco 09:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality for me.--Tournasol7 14:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Very good picture and adequate categorization. --Plozessor 16:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Come on, this is a very good picture. Very general descriptions make me unhappy, but if giving the building's name isn't enough, then half the pictures promoted here shouldn't be QI. --Benjism89 13:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 09:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Zaouiat_Moulay_Abdeslam,_Tizguite_3.jpg

  • Nomination The shrine of the righteous saint Sidi Abdel Salam bin Muhammad Al-Yaqoubi Al-Walani, in the village of Zawiya Sidi Abdel Salam near the Moroccan city of Ifrane. --User:Mounir Neddi 13:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Leaning in on the right, needs PC --Plozessor 04:34, 2 November 2024
  •  Comment Reason for request: The request was archived before the discussion was completed. --User:Mounir Neddi 20:22, 05 Nov 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's still leaning in on the right side (less than before though), but now it's also leaning in on the left side, and it's darker than before (too dark). --Plozessor 03:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's not sharp enough and the sky is almost blown out and has jpeg artifacts. -- Екатерина Борисова 02:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 09:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Southern_Theatre_(Gerasa,_Jerash;_Jordan_v2)_-_مسرح_جرش_الجنوبي.jpg

Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 08:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

File:At_the_Cradle_of_Aviation_Museum_2023_121.jpg

  • Nomination CM-002 at Cradle of Aviation Museum --Mike Peel 09:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    A bit noisy and seems tilted CW --MB-one 21:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for the review, rotated and noise reduced, does that look better? Thanks. Mike Peel 20:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
     Support Good quality now. --MB-one 17:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose The sign in the left bottom corner is very disturbing. I know you didn't have the choice, but please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 18:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Peulle 08:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Il_Pitosforo_(Otranto).jpg

  • Nomination Il Pitosforo tree (Pittosporum) , Otranto, Italy --Bgag 03:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Harsh lighting, greens appear washed out. Fixable? --Tagooty 04:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
     Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose In the new version the greens have become browner, looks less natural to me. --Tagooty 02:57, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Sarlat-la-Canéda_-_Place_de_la_Liberté_-_1.jpg

  • Nomination Sarlat-la-Canéda (Dordogne, France) - Liberty square --Benjism89 10:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 04:28, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Something is off with the sky colors (parts of the sky are just plain purple). Sharpness is borderline. About the blurred faces, personally I don't have an issue with them but in general they are usually not appreciated here, and for scenes like this not necessary. --Plozessor 04:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I agree for the blurred faces. --Sebring12Hrs 04:42, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Indeed, part of the sky was purple and contrast in the sky was a bit unnatural, so I adjusted WB and decreased a bit sky contrast. I may also have blurred faces that were too small to be recognised, so I unblurred the furthest. But it's the first I read that blurring people's faces is "usually not appreciated here" : I'd be happy to read any discussion about this matter that you could find. --Benjism89 17:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Picture is acceptable now. About the blurred faces, I can't link to a discussion with real arguments (besides 'it's not necessary' or 'we don't do that'), but per my personal understanding of German law, a picture like yours would be allowed without blurring the faces because it's a public location and it's large number of people. I don't know French law though. --Plozessor 04:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I personally cannot abide the blurred-out faces.--Peulle 09:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --MB-one 13:31, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

时间表(提名后8天)

  • 日 03 11月 → 一 11 11月
  • 一 04 11月 → 二 12 11月
  • 二 05 11月 → 三 13 11月
  • 三 06 11月 → 四 14 11月
  • 四 07 11月 → 五 15 11月
  • 五 08 11月 → 六 16 11月
  • 六 09 11月 → 日 17 11月
  • 日 10 11月 → 一 18 11月
  • 一 11 11月 → 二 19 11月