Commons:Návrhy na kvalitní obrázky

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
This page is a translated version of a page Commons:Quality images candidates and the translation is 37% 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Outdated translations are marked like this.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
COM:QIC
Přeskočit k návrhům
Other languages:
العربية • ‎čeština • ‎Cymraeg • ‎Deutsch • ‎English • ‎Canadian English • ‎español • ‎français • ‎Bahasa Indonesia • ‎日本語 • ‎latviešu • ‎मैथिली • ‎македонски • ‎Nederlands • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎русский • ‎shqip • ‎svenska • ‎українська • ‎中文
float

Zde najdete obrázky navržené na zařazení mezi Kvalitní obrázky. Prosím povšimněte si, že jde o něco jiného než Nejlepší obrázky. Pokud chcete ke svým fotografiím nějaké obsáhlejší komentáře a kritiku, je vhodnějším místem stránka Photography critiques.

Cíl

Cílem projektu kvalitní obrázky je podpořit ty, kteří jsou skutečným základem Wikimedia Commons - jednotlivé uživatele, kteří přispívají k rozšíření Commons svými jedinečnými příspěvky. Zatímco Nejlepší obrázky shromažďují to absolutně nejlepší a nejpůsobivější z veškerého obsahu Commons, cílem Kvalitních obrázků je podpořit uživatele v tvorbě obrázků s definovanou úrovní kvality, a identifikovat obrázky ji splňující.
Kvalitní obrázky nejsou soutěž.

Pravidla

Všechny navržené obrázky musí být vytvořené přímo uživateli Commons.

Pro navrhovatele

Níže popsaná jsou přibližná kritéria pro Kvalitní obrázky, podrobný popis je v Quality images guidelines (zatím v angličtině).


Požadavky na stránku s popisem
  1. Autorská práva. Kvalitní obrázky musí být na Commons nahrané přímo držitelem autorským práv s přijatelnou licencí.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.

Kvalitní obrázky musí být zařazené v odpovídajících kategoriích, mít výstižný název a popis. V případě rostlin a zvířat by měl popis obsahovat systematické jméno.

  1. Kvalitní obrázky nesmí obsahovat reklamu či podpis autora v samotném obrázku. Informace o autorovi a autorských právech by se měly nacházet na stránce s popisem, a mohou být v metadatech souboru (EXIF a pod. ), ale neměly by narušovat vlastní obrázek.


Creator

Pictures must have been created by a Wikimedian in order to be eligible for QI status. This means that pictures from, for example, Flickr are ineligible. (Note that Featured Pictures do not have this requirement.) 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.

Technické požadavky

Přesnější specifikace je v textu Commons:Quality images guidelines.


Resolution

Bitmapped images (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) should normally have at least 2 megapixels; reviewers may demand more for subjects that can be photographed easily. This is because images on Commons may be printed, viewed on monitors with very high resolution, or used in future media. This rule excludes vector graphics (SVG) or computer-generated images that have been constructed with freely-licensed or open software programs as noted in the image's description.


Image quality

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.


Composition and lighting

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.


Value

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


How to nominate

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

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description  --~~~~ |}}

The description shouldn't be more than a few words, and please leave a blank line between your new entry and any existing entries.

If you are nominating an image by another Wikimedian, include their username in the description as below

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Very short description (by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]) --~~~~ |}}

Note: there is a Gadget, QInominator, which makes nominations quicker. It adds a small "Nominate this image for QI" link at the top of every file page. Clicking the link adds the image to a list of potential candidates. When this list is completed, edit Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list. At the top of the edit window a green bar will be displayed. Clicking the bar inserts all potential candidates into the edit window.


Number of nominations

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


Hodnocení obrázků

Kterýkoli přihlášený uživatel může vyhodnotit nominace.
Při hodnocení se užijí stejná kritéria jako při nominace,


Jak provést hodnocení

How to update the status

Důkladně si prohlédněte obrázek. Otevřete si jej v plném rozlišení a zkontrolujte, jestli splňuje jednotlivá kritéria pro kvalitní obrázky

  • Pokud rozhodnete že obrázek kritéria splňuje, upravte příslušný řádek ze tvaru

Image: ImageNameHere. jpg|{{/Nomination| velmi krátký popis --~~~~ |}}

Image: ImageNameHere. jpg|{{/Promotion| velmi krátký popis --Podpis navrhovatele | Čím je obrázek obzvlášť dobrý. --~~~~}}

Jinak řečeno, šablonu změňte z /Nomination na /Promotion a přidejte popis, případně velmi krátké zdůvodnění.

  • Pokud rozhodnete že obrázek kritéria nesplňuje, upravte příslušný řádek ze tvaru

Image: ImageNameHere. jpg|{{/Nomination| velmi krátký popis --~~~~ |}}

Image: ImageNameHere. jpg|{{/Decline| velmi krátký popis --Podpis navrhovatele | velmi krátké zdůvodnění --~~~~}}

Jinak řečeno, šablonu změňte z /Nomination na /Decline přidejte podpis, případně kritéria na kvalitní obrázky, která navržený obrázek nesplňuje. (Používejte názvy sekcí z kritérií). Pokud obrázek nesplňuje větší množství požadavků, stačí uvést 2-3 nejvážnější chyby, zmínit "multiple problems". Když zamítáte nominaci, je přínosné na stránce navrhovatele vysvětlit důvody - ale vždy přívětivě, žádné kousavé poznámky.

Prosba: Hodnoťte nejdřív nejstarší nezhodnocené obrázky.


Zhodnocení a

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.


How to execute decision

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


Unassessed images (nomination outlined in blue)

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 February 25 2018 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.


Consensual review rules

See Commons:Quality images candidates#Rules

Page refresh: 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]] 02:40, 25 únor 2018 (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.
Thank you.

February 25, 2018

February 24, 2018

February 23, 2018

February 22, 2018

February 21, 2018

February 20, 2018

February 19, 2018

February 18, 2018

February 17, 2018

February 16, 2018

February 15, 2018

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 Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose and Symbol support vote.svg 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:Arcades. Bologna. Italy.jpg

Arcades. Bologna. Italy.jpg

  • Nomination Arcades. Bologna. Italy --Ввласенко 09:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A bit noisy, but a beautiful picture and QI for me -- Spurzem 12:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The composition is fine, but I think it's too noisy for QI. Let's have some more opinions.--Peulle 13:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I must agree with Spurzem. Too much noise unfortunately. --Halavar 13:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
      • I didn't say: „Too much noise“! -- Spurzem 14:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment My mistake, sorry. I thought about Peulle, not you. --Halavar 16:57, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - The noise is hardly visible to me at 300% of full screen size; it's only when I look at the photo at full size that I really see the noise, and even then, it's not severe, though Ввласенко might want to resolve this disagreement by correcting it. -- Ikan Kekek 18:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done -- Ikan Kekek, thank you for your advice. There is always a struggle between noise and sharpness, I hope that now the image is not worse. -- Ввласенко 22:02, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Looks better to me. -- Ikan Kekek 01:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Lack of detail, unsharp, artifacts of noise reduction. As Ввласенко says, it's a struggle between noise and sharpness. I like the grainy version better but IMO neither of them is good enough for a QI. --Basotxerri 14:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Only a comment...Not my style and my biggest matter is to understand

the reviewers. Technical noise reduction is not wealthy (and limit for this sensor is 16000 ASA/ISO) and now the question marks:

a) What´s the sense shwowing peoble to sepeerate a snap from an image in architecture? It´s the rear side of an old men, and it´s not composite, see next T-Shirt behind....

b) I do not like grain, but if someone will this convert it to b&w , we can see it´s not graphic enough

Conclusion: It´s warm, it´s a base for refuge. I miss a body with face or an idea for the picmakers idea. Still think, it´s just a random snap.

  • weak Symbol support vote.svg Support for the denoised version, full Symbol support vote.svg Support for the first. --Smial 12:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)~
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Würgau_Bergrennen2017_Sylva_Fury_0138.jpg

Würgau Bergrennen2017 Sylva Fury 0138.jpg

  • Nomination Sylva Fury at the mountain race in Würgau 2017 --Ermell 07:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --GT1976 07:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose OK. --GT1976 22:33, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Car and background very distorted; disturbing shadow. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 12:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The picture does not give any idea what the car looks like in reality. -- Spurzem 08:47, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Morph the cat? Geht für mich gar nicht. Gerade als QI mit einem mehr realistischem, als ästhetischen Anspruch, wir hatten das ja schon mit dem Traktor Reifen - ansonsten Nice Try.-) Ansonsten bin ich sicher kein seriöser Autofotograf, kommt bei mir immer Unsinn raus ː-D Für mich sind Autos da aber auch nur Objekte zum Objekt. --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 16:48, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Spurzem.--Peulle 09:59, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Peulle 21:29, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Altamura_BW_2016-10-15_15-20-42_2.jpg

Altamura BW 2016-10-15 15-20-42 2.jpg

  • Nomination Italy, Altamura, Santa Maria Assunta cathedral --Berthold Werner 12:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Image has too small resolution and most of all sharpness is not so good. --Halavar 14:24, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Very good image of an impressive work of art. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 10:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - I agree with Halavar. At this file size, I'd expect more sharpness. -- Ikan Kekek 05:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Are we here in Super Featured Pictures Candidates or in QI? -- Spurzem 08:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
We're judging a small, unsharp photo in QI. If it were nominated to FP, it would be rejected by everyone out of hand for having bad crops as well as the other problems. Here, we consider whether it might have good enough photographic quality. -- Ikan Kekek 18:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No way this is a QI according to 2016 standards. Maybe 1999 standards. In 2016, any smartphone can do this.--Peulle 10:00, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I can only wonder about many judgements, both about some positives and about negatives. Apparently QIC is on the way to where Wikipedia KEB went for a long time, that hardly anyone will present pictures. It does not help to say that we no longer have 1999 but 2016. Because not everyone can buy every year a new camera equipment for 10,000 euros or more, just to get a few pixels more for QI. -- Spurzem 12:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment When one person disagrees with you, perhaps you are not swayed. When three people do, perhaps you should start to think about whether it is you who are in the wrong. The Guidelines clearly say that standards increase with time, and while we can't expect professional quality, we shall certainly have to raise our standards as time passes. --Peulle 14:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Obviously meanwhile you expect much more than a high professional quality. -- Spurzem 17:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
Rubbish.--Peulle 20:49, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks all, especially Lothar, for the comments. It seems there is no majority for a pro. --Berthold Werner 06:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Peulle 21:30, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

File:EstacionCamet-0014-3.jpg

EstacionCamet-0014-3.jpg

  • Nomination Building in Camet train station, railway Roca --Ezarate 20:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Decline
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Insufficient quality. --Bijay chaurasia 17:34, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your review but can you specify the issues? --Ezarate 20:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilted, might perhaps need a perspective correction, too, CAs at least on the trees. I would crop a bit of the sky, too. --Basotxerri 16:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Symbol declined.svg Declined   --Peulle 21:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

File:GKB_Kaiserwald_01.jpg

GKB Kaiserwald 01.jpg

  • Nomination Railroad track in Styria --Clemens Stockner 11:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --GT1976 13:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Sorry but I disagree: the image is tilted or needs a perspective correction, check the verticals of the buildings. --Basotxerri 16:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Basotxerri---Peulle 07:39, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Basotxerri 16:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Alt_Duvenstedt_Mühle_001.jpg

Alt Duvenstedt Mühle 001.jpg

  • Nomination Mühle in Alt Duvenstedt im Kreis Rendsburg-Eckernförde in Schleswig-Holstein --Hans-Jürgen Neubert 12:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 15:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Too blue! --RaboKarbakian 15:21, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It´s not blueish and not to warm. If some one wanna critize, then it´s to bright. Pls Check the time stamp, 15 Minutes later it´s real dark, because night dew at a winter day.(Frozen Times) I see no sense to drift every image to a sunny High-Noon Level. Looks like the audience wanna see more tombs and toilet rooms from my side, I added one todayː-D With the hard job to take a pic from ugly but sensefull places with open apperture. Daily Pic is warmed up, over 2200K, no reality but North Side--Hans-Jürgen Neubert 06:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC).
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per photographer's explanation. -- Ikan Kekek 06:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Dark. Underexposed foreground, per Commons:Image_guidelines#Quality_and_featured_photographic_images. The light is just not good. The fact that this was nearly night is not a valid reason to accept dark pictures here. The result is more important than the originality, and if we have no underexposed images among our QIs, the reason is not because the users never attempt to shoot in the evening, but rather because such shots too black are not successful, sorry -- Basile Morin 04:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I too think that it hasn't quite succeeded, especially when looking at the borders between the mill tower and the sky.--Peulle 07:41, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I do agree with the author of this picture, it is not too blue --PJDespa (talk) 22:06, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Basile Morin 04:56, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


Časový rozvrh (kdy uplyne 15 dní od nominace)

so 17 2. → ne 25 2.
ne 18 2. → po 26 2.
po 19 2. → út 27 2.
út 20 2. → st 28 2.
st 21 2. → čt 01 3.
čt 22 2. → pá 02 3.
pá 23 2. → so 03 3.
so 24 2. → ne 04 3.
ne 25 2. → po 05 3.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:N%C3%A1vrhy_na_kvalitn%C3%AD_obr%C3%A1zky
commons.wikimedia.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2018-09
615596
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:ZGHHXPGZXN6RC2KI2PT6B5KV3LJ2WC45
<urn:uuid:bc53d1a6-7ee6-4a05-b780-aa05ef85b2f4>
2018-02-25T12:42:44Z
208.80.154.224
text/html
sha1:23I54A3VTO7JJT26ACMPEA6IYNRWI7N5
<urn:uuid:620f1365-7c6f-4e7c-8310-57b3cbbf1af9>
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:N%C3%A1vrhy_na_kvalitn%C3%AD_obr%C3%A1zky
response
<urn:uuid:441c17cf-2cef-49ef-b57d-21829fe950f1>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-236-255-44.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2018-09
operator: Common Crawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for February 2018
publisher: Common Crawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf