Commons:Candidatas a imágenes de calidad

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 89% 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Outdated translations are marked like this.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
Saltar a nominaciones

Éstas son las candidatas a convertirse en Imagen de Calidad. Por favor, que quede claro que no es lo mismo que Imágenes destacadas. Adicionalmente, en caso de que desees información sobre tus imágenes, puedes conseguirla en Críticas fotográficas.

Objetivo

El objetivo de las imágenes de calidad es alentar a la gente que son la base de Commons, los usuarios individuales que proporcionan las imágenes para expandir esta colección. Mientras que las imágenes destacadas identifican a las mejores de todas las imágenes subidas a Commons, las Imágenes de Calidad sirven para identificar y alentar los esfuerzos de los usuarios para subir imágenes de calidad a Commons. Además, las imágenes de calidad podrían ser un lugar donde otros usuarios expliquen métodos para mejorar una imagen.


Directrices

Todas las imágenes nominadas deben ser el resultado del trabajo de los usuarios de Commons.

Para los nominadores

A continuación se incluyen las directrices generales para Imágenes de Calidad, y un criterio más detallado está disponible en Directrices de imágenes.

Requisitos de las imágenes
  1. Estado de derecho de autor. Los candidatos de imagen de calidad necesitan estar disponible bajo una licencia apropiada. Vea Commons:Sobre las licencias.
  2. Imágenes deben cumplir con todos los políticas y prácticas de Commons, incluyendo Commons:Fotografías de personas identificables.
  3. Imágenes de calidad tendrán un nombre de archivo significativo, serán categorizadas apropiadamente y tendrán una descripción precisa en la página de archivo en más de uno idioma. Es preferible, pero no es obligatorio, incluir una descripción en inglés.
  4. No habrá publicidades, firmas o marcas de agua en la imagen. Información sobre el autor y el derecho de autor de las imágenes de calidad debe estar ubicada en la página de archivo y se podría estar contenido en los metadatos del archivo, pero no debe interferir con el contenido visual de la imagen.

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

Las imágenes deben haber creado por un Wikimedista para ser eligible para esta etiqueta de calidad. Para dar un ejemplo, esto significa que imágenes que provengan de Flickr no son eligibles. Tenga en cuenta que imágenes destacadas no están sujetas a este requisito. Reproducciones fotográficas de obras de arte bidimensionales, hechas por Wikimedistas, si son eligibles y deben ser marcadas con la licencia apropiada. Si se promoviera una imagen mientras que no fuera la creación de un Wikimedista, se debería quitar la etiqueta de imagen de calidad en cuanto se observaría.


Requisitos técnicos

Criterios más detallados están disponibles en Directrices de imágenes.

Resolución

Imágenes de formato ráster (JPEG, PNG, GIFF, TIFF) serán al mínimo de tamaño 2 megapixels; lectores desearían un tamaño más grande para los sujetos que puedan ser fotografiados fácilmente. Esto es porque las imágenes de Commons pueden usarse para la impresión, para su visualización en monitores de alta resolución, o para utilizarse en medias futuras. Esta norma excluye los gráficos vectoriales (SVG) y imágenes generadas por ordenador y construidas con software libre, lo cual debe ser indicado en la descripción del archivo.

Calidad de las Imágenes

Las imágenes digitales pueden sufrir diversos problemas originados en la captura y procesamiento de la imagen como ruido, problemas con la compresión JPEG, falta de información, zonas de sombra o de relieve, o problemas con la captura de colores. Todos estos temas deben ser manejados correctamente.

Composición e iluminación

El arreglo del sujeto principal de una imagen debe contribuir a la propia imagen. Los objetos de fondo no deben distraer. La iluminación y el foco también han de contribuir al resultado global; el sujeto ha de destacar, ser completo y estar bien expuesto.

Valor

Nuestro objetivo principal es favorecer la calidad de las imágenes que contribuyen a Wikicommons, algo valioso para los proyectos de Wikimedia.

Cómo nominar

Simplemente agregue una línea de código desde esta forma a la parte superior de la sección de nominaciones: Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list

File:Nombre_del_archivo.jpg|{{/Nomination|muy breve descripción  --~~~~ |}}

La descripción no deben incluir más de unas palabras. Favor deje una línea blanca entre la nominación tuya y las demás.

Si usted está nominando una imagen por otro usuario, indique su nombre en la descripción como se indica a continuación:

File:Nombre_del_archivo.jpg|{{/Nomination|Una descripción breve (por [[Usuario:NOMBRE|NOMBRE]]) --~~~~ |}}

Nota: Hay un accesorio que acelera las nominaciones. El accesorio añade un enlace pequeño a la parte superior de cada página de archivo, lo cual se marca "Nómina esta imagen para QI". Al hacer clic, el archivo será agregado a una lista de candidatos guardados de su elección. Al fin de completar la lista, empiece a editar Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. A la parte superior de la página de edición, se mostrará una barra verde. Al hacer clic en la barra, se insertará todos los candidatos guardados a la caja de texto para su conveniencia.

Número de nominaciones

Seleccione detenidamente las imágenes mejores para nominar. No más de cinco imágenes pueden ser nominados por usuario por día.

Note: If possible, for every picture you nominate, please review at least one of the other candidates.

Evaluación de las imágenes

Cualquier usuario registrado, que lleve al menos 10 días, haya realizado 50 ediciones y quién no sea el autor de la obra ni el nominador, puede revisar una nominación.

Cuando un revisor evalúa una imagen debe considerar las mismas directrices que el nominador.

Cómo revisar

Cómo actualizar el estado

Examina cuidadosamente la imagen. Ábrela en la máxima resolución, y mira si se cumplen los criterios de calidad.

  • Si decides promover la nominación, cambia la línea relevante de
File:Nombre_del_archivo.jpg|{{/Nomination|muy breve descripción --~~~~ |}}

a:

File:Nombre_del_archivo.jpg|{{/Promotion| muy breve descripción --Firma del nominador | Por qué te gusta. --~~~~}}

En otras palabras, cambia la plantilla de /Nomination a /Promotion y añade tu firma, a ser posible con algún pequeño comentario.

  • Si decides declinar la nominación, cambia la línea relevante de
File:Nombre_del_archivo.jpg|{{/Nomination| muy breve descripción --~~~~ |}}

to

File:Nombre_del_archivo.jpg|{{/Decline| muy breve descripción --Firma del nominador | Por qué no te gusta. --~~~~}}

En otras palabras, cambia la plantilla de /Nomination a /Decline y añade tu firma, a ser posible declarando los criterios por los que la imagen falló (puedes usar títulos de la sección de las directrices). Si hay muchos problemas, por favor notifica sólo los 2 o 3 más severos, y añade multiple problems. Cuando declines una nominación, por favor explica las razones en la página de discusión del nominador - como regla general, debes ser agradable y alentador! En el mensaje deberías dar una explicación más detallada de tu decisión.

Nota: Por favor, evalúa primero las imágenes más antiguas.

Período de gracia y promoción

Si no hay objeciones en un período de 2 días (exactamente: 48 horas) desde su revisión, la imagen se promueve o no, de acuerdo con la revisión que recibió. Si tienes objeciones, mueve la imagen al estado Consensual review.

Cómo ejecutar una decisión

QICbot actúa automáticamente estos 2 días después de que la decisión se ha tomado, y las imágenes promovidas son guardadas en Promovidas recientemente a la espera de la inserción manual en una apropiada página de Imágenes de Calidad.

Si crees que has encontrado una imagen excepcional que merece el estatus de Imagen destacada, entonces nomínala también en Commons:Featured picture candidates

Instrucciones de cerrar candidaturas manualmente (úselas solo en caso de emergencia)

Si se promueve,

  1. Añadir la imagen al grupo o grupos apropiados de páginas Imágenes de Calidad. La imagen también necesita ser añadida a las sub páginas asociadas, sólo 3-4 de las imágenes más nuevas han de ser mostradas en la página principal.
  2. Añadir la plantilla {{QualityImage}}la imagen.
  3. Mover la línea con la nominación de la imagen y la revisión a Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives junio 2024
  4. Añadir la plantilla {{File:imagename.jpg}} a la página de discusión del usuario.

Si declinaste,

  1. ueve la línea con la nominación de la imagen y la revisión a Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives junio 2024.
  • Las imágenes que esperan una revisión, se muestran en un recuadro azul.
  • Las imágenes que el revisor ha aceptado se muestran en un recuadro verde.
  • Las imágenes que el revisor ha aceptado se muestran en un recuadro rojo.

Imágenes no asignadas (recuadro azul)

Las imágenes nominadas que no han sido promovidas ni declinadas, o acabaron en consenso (hubo igual número de oposiciones y apoyos) tras 8 días en esta página deberían ser borradas de esta página sin promoción, archivadas en Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives June 09 2024 y añadirle a la imagen la Category:Unassessed QI candidates.

Proceso de revisión de consenso

La revisión de consenso es un lugar utilizado en el caso en que el procedimiento descrito anteriormente sea insuficiente y necesite discusión para que surjan más opiniones.

Cómo preguntar por la revisión de consenso

Si esto parece demasiado complicado, sólo cambia /Promotion, /Decline a /Discuss y añade tus comentarios inmediatamente tras la revisión. Alguien la moverá a la sección de revisión de consenso. O sólo intentalo, acertarás si sigues cuidadosamente lo que todo el mundo hace.

Por favor, sólo envía cosas a la revisión de consenso que hayan sido revisadas como promovidas / declinadas. Si, como revisor, no puedes tomar una decisión, añade tus comentarios, pero deja el candidato en esta página.

Revisión de las reglas de consenso

Ver Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Actualización de la página: 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]] 13:05, 9 junio 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).


June 9, 2024

June 8, 2024

June 7, 2024

June 6, 2024

June 5, 2024

June 4, 2024

June 3, 2024

June 2, 2024

June 1, 2024

May 31, 2024

May 30, 2024

May 29, 2024

May 28, 2024

May 27, 2024

May 26, 2024

May 25, 2024

May 23, 2024

May 20, 2024

May 19, 2024

May 18, 2024

May 8, 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:Common_Dandelion_Radès_forest.jpg

  • Nomination Common Dandelion Radès forest. By User:Smailtn --TOUMOU 08:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Grainy --Poco a poco 09:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The criticism is not entirely unjustified. Nevertheless: It is an atmospheric and sharp image. I like it and I am in favor of QI. -- Spurzem 10:09, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Poco a poco. In addition, this image was clearly miscategorized (no flowers visible, just fruits) and also misidentified (angular stem, achenes very different from Taraxacum officinale). --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:30, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Velo_24,_Berlin_(VB243553).jpg

  • Nomination Steppenwolf pedelec citybike at VELOBerlin 2024 at Tempelhofer Feld, Berlin --MB-one 18:51, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 18:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, but the background is too cluttered. The cut off person is quite distracting. --Zinnmann 20:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Zinnmann. --Sebring12Hrs 07:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 09:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Poestlingsbergkirche,_Linz_(P1130983).jpg

  • Nomination Wallfahrtskirche zu den Sieben Schmerzen Mariä auf dem Pöstlingberg, Linz --MB-one 21:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment This looks somehow tilted. The main church is fine but the other buildings (especially on the left) are looking distorted. --Plozessor 04:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks for the review --MB-one 17:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 05:24, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose There are burned out details at the buildings and  Level of detail too low --Augustgeyler 18:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Augustgeyler. --Sebring12Hrs 11:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 09:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Une_abeille_entrain_de_butiner.jpg

  • Nomination a bee foragingI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2024. --Skander zarrad 19:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. Please include categories for location before nomination --MB-one 08:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment okay, i will do when i return home --Skander zarrad 11:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Depth of field issues. --Sebring12Hrs 15:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The entire bee is in focus. I'm not terribly concerned that not every part of every flower is. ReneeWrites 19:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 09:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Une_abeille_entrain_de_butiner_2.jpg

  • Nomination a bee foraging 2I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2024. --Skander zarrad 19:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Depth of field issues. --Sebring12Hrs 15:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support This one's more tricky, as not the entire body of the bee is in focus, but the parts that are are amazingly detailed. I also adore the pose. I doubt it'll pass review but it's worth giving a shot. ReneeWrites 19:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 09:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Clark_Lake_Park_in_Kent,_Washington_-_29.jpg

  • Nomination Clark Lake Park in Kent, Washington --Roc0ast3r 04:49, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment It seems perspective needs to be improved. --Sebring12Hrs 07:57, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 18:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Perspective is still not within the rules and level of detail is very low here. --Augustgeyler 18:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 09:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

File:At_London_2024_109.jpg

  • Nomination Roadworks on Baker Street, London, revealing underground piping. --Mike Peel 07:33, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Quality good but slightly leaning out on both sides! --Scotch Mist 15:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Perspective redone, does that look better? Thanks. Mike Peel 21:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Left ok now but right still slightly leaning out! --Scotch Mist 06:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Ah, I used the lamppost on the right, but guess it's not straight. Perspective redone using part of a building, is that better? Thanks. Mike Peel 07:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 09:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, but the sky and some details next to it are burned out. --Augustgeyler 20:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 09:43, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Jacobite_train_from_the_rear_at_Mallaig_station.jpg

  • Nomination The Jacobite train, seen from the rear at Mallaig rail station in Mallaig, Scotland. --Grendelkhan 07:25, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low --Augustgeyler 08:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't understand. It's in focus and well exposed. What kind of detail is missing? Grendelkhan 10:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Strong processing of your camera (phone) led to loss of most of the detail of any texture / surface in that image. It is a common issue with mobile phones. And in this case, due to dimmed light, the effect is quite strong.--Augustgeyler 10:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Level of Detail seems borderline to me (as Augustgeyler said, smartphones hardly take good pictures except in bright sunlight). However, the picture is also leaning out and underexposed. --Plozessor 07:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 18:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Mallaig_coastal_view.jpg

  • Nomination The coastline at Mallaig, Scotland, as seen from a little ways up a hill. --Grendelkhan 07:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I think the level of detail is too low here due to intense camera processing. --Augustgeyler 10:44, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 18:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Εκπαιδευτήρια_Μπαχλιτζανάκη_2484.jpg

  • Nomination The former Bahlitzanakis school, Piraeus. --C messier 20:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, but due to intense perspective correction the proportions of that building apear too annatural. --Augustgeyler 21:20, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • More opinions please. --C messier 04:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral. But I agree with Augustgeyler. -- Spurzem 08:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose I agree with the too strong distortion, but this should be fixable by skewing it (making the right side lower/smaller). --Plozessor 03:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Augustgeyler -- Екатерина Борисова 03:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 18:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Slender-billed_gull_(Chroicocephalus_genei)_immature_Sfax.jpg

  • Nomination Slender-billed gull (Chroicocephalus genei) immature --Charlesjsharp 11:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Syrio 12:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm not opposed just wrong identification of the species, it is not a Slender-billed_gull but a Yellow-legged gull --El Golli Mohamed 20:27, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support El Golli Mohamed You could simply fix the category ;) --Plozessor 03:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 11:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

File:A830_in_Mallaig_city_center.jpg

  • Nomination The A830 road as it passes through the city center of Mallaig, Scotland. --Grendelkhan 07:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Level of detail too low for me, sorry --PantheraLeo1359531 07:55, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Disagree, I think it's fine. Let's discuss this. ReneeWrites 14:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't follow, please explain. It's in focus and well exposed at around 12 MP; what kind of detail do you mean? --Grendelkhan 14:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Detail seems fine for me. --MB-one 20:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose  Level of detail too low. Just so much mobile phone processing made any texture disappear. --Augustgeyler 08:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment There are at least fifty other QI taken with this phone model; I don't think that the processing is generally held to be a problem. See https://w.wiki/AK7R. Grendelkhan 11:11, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment I disagree. The quality in this images sometimes show way less detail than a 12 years old DSLR would provide. In some scenarios with bright light nad good contrast the results might be OK. But in some other situations, like here, the over processing really makes the result too poor to become QI. --Augustgeyler 18:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Lack of detail, overprocessed. That there are QIs taken with a Pixel XL doesn't make all Pixel XL pictures QIs. --Plozessor 03:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --August Geyler (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

File:A85_along_Oban_coast_at_blue_hour.jpg

  • Nomination The A85 road along the coast in Oban, Scotland, at dusk. --Grendelkhan 07:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --N. Johannes 15:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Please, fix the perspective to get verticals vertical (see right side) --Poco a poco 17:07, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Fixed the perspective. Grendelkhan 05:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed, lack of detail, halos around the object. Not bad for a night shot with a smartphone, but IMO not good enough for a QI. --Plozessor 14:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Peulle 07:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Εκπαιδευτήρια_Μπαχλιτζανάκη_2483.jpg

  • Nomination Former Bahlitzanakis school, Piraeus. --C messier 20:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Sorry, but there was to much perspective corretion involved. The building looks annatural. --Augustgeyler 21:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support QI really is a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't kind of ordeal, huh? The picture's fine, let's discuss this. ReneeWrites 15:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment yes please dicuss. It is not only about PC. It think it was taken from a position too low and too close, forcing the camera to be tilted up too much. --Augustgeyler 21:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 07:52, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good for me -- Spurzem 08:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose The lines are vertical now. But I am sorry, the perspective corrections are borderline. Due the a short distance and very low point of view the verticals had to be corrected very much resulting an a bit too unnatural reproduction of that building. --August Geyler (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 18:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Sabine_Scholt_at_Republica_2024.jpg

  • Nomination Sabine Scholt and Tom Buhrow at Re:publica 2024 in Berlin --Kritzolina 19:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not enough detail IMO --MB-one 23:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good for me. I see enough detail at Sabine Scholt. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 16:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Spurzem. Absolutely acceptable for available light photography, and very good composition. --Smial 15:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Peulle 07:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Une_larve_de_coccinelle_qui_dévore_un_pucerons.jpg

  • Nomination A ladybug larva that devours an aphidI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2024. --Skander zarrad 20:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not enough DoF to me. --Sebring12Hrs 08:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • short dof, but the head and the prey are clearly visible, and no time to close further given the speed --Skander zarrad 16:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • I improved the overall sharpness a bit, but I can't increase the dof --Skander zarrad 19:04, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Please do not cancel my vote ! Are you serious ? --Sebring12Hrs 09:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Dear Sebring12Hrs I don't think he canceled your vote, he is new her, he want just fix the photo,Thank you for your understanding TOUMOU 22:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  • But he can't fix lack of DOF.  Oppose for same reason. --Plozessor 03:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 20:43, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Anne_Kaun_at_Republica_2024_04.jpg

  • Nomination Anne Kaun at Re:publica 2024 in Berlin --Kritzolina 11:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Peulle 13:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I think the woman is not sharp enough and ther is some lack of detail. No QI for me. --Alexander-93 16:26, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support If I take into account that this is not a studio shot, but was photographed in available light and that the image is significantly larger than six mpixels, then the quality is quite acceptable. --Smial 13:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 08:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Not even sharp when downscaled to 3 MP. --Plozessor 03:49, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Augustgeyler 20:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Belle-dame_entrain_de_butiner.jpg

  • Nomination Vanessa cardui foragingI, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license:This image was uploaded as part of Wiki Loves Earth 2024. --Skander zarrad 20:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Overexposed and depth of field is too small, sorry. --Красный 15:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
    on for depth of field? the head is very clear --Skander zarrad 16:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
    Returned to "Decline", if you disagree — change to "Discuss" instead. Head is clear, yes. But half of both wings is not in focus, that is rather disturbing. Красный 16:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
    ✓ Done I reworked the exposure, the impression of overexposure should no longer be there. Unfortunately the DoF is concentrated on the body of the animal THANKS :) --Skander zarrad 18:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --Augustgeyler 19:22, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Летний_сад._Аллегория_дня2.jpg

  • Nomination Allegory of Day (bust in Summer Garden), Saint Petersburg, Russia. --Екатерина Борисова 02:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ploozessor 04:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Needs some perspective correction and there are some really prominent blue fringes to the right. --C messier 20:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support -- Spurzem 14:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose CA in the upper right corner --Nikride 19:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --Augustgeyler 21:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

File:La_cathédrale_de_la_Major_vue_depuis_le_parvis_du_Mucem.jpg

  • Nomination La Major Cathedral of Marseille seen from the Mucem forecourt. --Remontees 17:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Good picture but needs slight perspective correction --Plozessor 04:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done Is it better? --Remontees 22:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
      •  Comment Others might still find it not 'vertical' enough, but IMO it's good now. --Plozessor 06:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
        •  Comment I agree with you, I corrected the verticals. Thanks for your help. --Remontees 22:56, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --Plozessor 12:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose It's leaning too much to me, please discuss. --Sebring12Hrs 07:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Perspective is ok for me. --Zinnmann 11:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose There is just a little to much distortion here, especially on the right side of the cathedral. --Augustgeyler 18:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → More votes?   --August Geyler (talk) 18:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Arriach_Pfarrkirche_hll._Philipp_und_Jakob_mit_Friedhof_SO-Ansicht_29042024_4972.jpg

  • Nomination Parish church Saints Philip and James, Arriach, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 01:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --IM3847 01:52, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. I'm not convinced of a good quality. The image is cropped too close at the bottom and the tower is badly distorted. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 09:19, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem -- Екатерина Борисова 07:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support: good for QI. --The Cosmonaut 03:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose: Distortion is too extreme. --Zinnmann 15:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem --Augustgeyler 21:38, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support IMO acceptable --XRay 04:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per XRay. --Sebring12Hrs 09:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Acceptable --Poco a poco 11:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --XRay 04:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

File:Dolfin-Wappen.svg

  • Nomination Coat of Arms of the House of Dolfin (Count)--ZuppaDiCarlo 12:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Ashoppio 12:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I am very conflicted,can such a small image be of quality? I would like to hear an opinion from others as well. Thank you. --GoldenArtists 13:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Since it is a SVG file the resolution doesn't count. Ashoppio 16:27, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support We had these discussions in the past, and there seems to be no rule that QI must be photos. This vector image seems to be good does not have any defects (I can't judge if it fully matches the original Coat of Arms though). --Plozessor 04:04, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Strange colours, strange proportions, the "gold" does not shine, nothing is reminiscent of the historical originals, except that the number of table tennis balls on the count's crown and the other elements of the coat of arms are correct. In addition, the file is 1.4MB in size, which is quite a lot for a vector graphic, the advantage of which is supposed to be that it can be scaled to any size with a small file size. --Smial 12:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment Hi, I'm the author of the coat of arms. I don't know if you're familiar with the field of vectorized coats of arms (.SVG), but what you described seems like a comment written by a person who doesn't know the term "heraldry". 1) Strange colours: The colors chosen derive from the color palette of User:Sodacan, the greatest herald of Wikipedia and now the stylistic standard of the platform; 2) strange proportions: the proportions are based on the image I put in the sources in the file description, so it's not a concrete problem; 3) "gold" does not shine: until they create holograms for the heraldic representation of metals, every heraldist limits himself to the predefined reference colors (yellow=gold, grey=silver, and so on); 4) nothing recalls the historical originals: stylistic freedom exists in heraldry, the important thing is that the subjects and elements present are the same, without adding or deleting anything; 5) the file is 1.4MB in size: I will lower it to 1 megabyte. --ZuppaDiCarlo 17:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Jakubhal 05:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support It is an SVG, level of detail is good. --Augustgeyler 21:33, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Appropriate credit should be given to the SVG elements you used. E.g. the fish are from File:Coat of Arms of the House of Dolfin.svg but those are not listed anywhere in the description. I also wonder why you chose a depiction of the griffins with short tails when they have long, lion-like tails in all the source images or why both wings are pointed up when in all the source images they have one wing pointed up and one down. ReneeWrites 08:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done The source thing is done, by the way, sa I told to the other, there is free stylistic form for the blazon (please read in the file desc {coa blazon}) --ZuppaDiCarlo 11:14, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Tabla del tiempo (día 8 tras la nominación)

  • sáb 01 jun → dom 09 jun
  • dom 02 jun → lun 10 jun
  • lun 03 jun → mar 11 jun
  • mar 04 jun → mié 12 jun
  • mié 05 jun → jue 13 jun
  • jue 06 jun → vie 14 jun
  • vie 07 jun → sáb 15 jun
  • sáb 08 jun → dom 16 jun
  • dom 09 jun → lun 17 jun