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Outdated translations are marked like this.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 5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 5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 May 06 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]] 21:25, 6 5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 how you are doing).


May 6, 2024

May 5, 2024

May 4, 2024

May 3, 2024

May 2, 2024

May 1, 2024

April 30, 2024

April 29, 2024

April 28, 2024

April 27, 2024

April 26, 2024

April 24, 2024

April 23, 2024

April 22, 2024

April 20, 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:EBACE_2023,_Le_Grand-Saconnex_(EB237703).jpg

  • Nomination Lavatory aboard a Pilatus PC-12 at EBACE 2023 --MB-one 22:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose I'm sorry, but I disagree. The blurry element at the top is a bit strange. --Nacaru 23:17, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
    @Nacaru:​ ✓ Done cloned out this imperfection. Thanks for the review. --MB-one 19:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

File:022_Wild_Alpine_Ibex_Grammont_Photo_by_Giles_Laurent.jpg

  • Nomination Wild alpine ibex massive mountains at Grammont --Giles Laurent 01:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Not sharp. --Tagooty 02:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
    The subject is the ibex and it was in focus and sharp enough in my opinion. Anyway, I just uploaded a new file with sharpened ibex. What do you think now Tagooty ? --Giles Laurent 11:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, I have to agree with Tagooty above. Still not sharp enough. --SHB2000 13:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done New sharpened version uploaded. Press Ctrl+F5 with image open at full resolution on Windows or Cmd+R on Mac to update cache and see the new version. What do you think now Tagooty and SHB2000 ? --Giles Laurent 09:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Indeed, it's not very sharp. --Sebring12Hrs 14:49, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
    Could you please elaborate what you consider is not sharp in the ibex @Sebring12Hrs? At such distance it is normal to not see every single hair of the animal, especially when the sun has already set and I think that even in these circumstances a sufficient enough amount of hair detail can be seen in this picture --Giles Laurent 18:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
    The animal is sharp, but it is such a small part of the image that we expect better sharpness either of the foreground or the background. Yann 18:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for your precision Yann. The thing is that at f2.8 (needed because of low light) and 104mm it is impossible to not have bokeh. In this case I think the subject of the image is the ibex and that the bokeh actually highlights the subject by separating it from the background. But I can understand that the subject beeing small, some people could be disturbed. But the fact of having the subject small was deliberate as the image was intended to showcase the animal in its habitat that is still very visible and distinguishable in my opinion. --Giles Laurent 18:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Undecided. The ibex is perfectly sharp and the bokeh is fine. However, for the ibex to be the subject (as outlined above), it makes up a quite small portion of the image. Resolution would be high enough to crop it a bit tighter around the animal though. --Plozessor 13:04, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
    Thank you for your review Plozessor. I could crop a bit the bottom of the picture if you think it would make it better but I'd like to keep the top of the mountains as they well represent the environment of the animal (I would like to avoid a crop like this one because the goal of the present picture is to show the animal surroundings). So do you think it would be better if I crop more the bottom of the picture Plozessor? (I'm just afraid that if I do so the subject would be too much lost on the bottom edge of the image instead of being at the 1/3 ratio) -- Giles Laurent 15:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The revisions have not brought any real improvement. The animal is simply too small and it doesn't work as a landscape photo either due to the lack of DOF. --Smial 15:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Bloemencorso_Zundert_2023_-_The_Jersey_Devil_figurant.jpg

  • Nomination An extra in front of "The Jersey Devil" taunts the creature with a piece of meat --ReneeWrites 06:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose IMHO, unfortunate top crop. --C messier 19:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Poor crop. --SHB2000 11:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Geumgang_Bridge,_Sokcho_01.jpg

  • Nomination Geumgang Bridge, Sokcho, South Korea --Bgag 02:49, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
    Good but slightly tilted --Plozessor 03:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)✓ Done You're right. --Bgag 15:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
    No new version uploaded? --ArildV 08:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
    Yes --Bgag 13:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
     Support Good now. --Plozessor 18:46, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
    I don't understand. I see only one version here, and its tilted. --ArildV 21:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
    ✓ Done My mistake. I have uploaded the new version. --Bgag 13:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Clearly QI now, good quality and composition.--ArildV 16:01, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 21:05, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Mini_Hatch_(J01)_IMG_8799.jpg

  • Nomination Mini Hatch (J01) in Böblingen --Alexander-93 07:47, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --GoldenArtists 08:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose. The car is very crowded. In addition, the transition between the roof and the light car in the background is barely visible. Incidentally, I find the license plate holder without a license plate unsightly. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 14:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 17:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Velden_Selpritsch_Kirchenweg_Filialkirche_hl._Andreas_Christophorus_20042024_4899.jpg

  • Nomination Painting of Saint Christopher at the subsidiary church Saint Andrew on Kirchenweg in Selpritsch, Velden, Carinthia, Austria -- Johann Jaritz 01:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 01:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, it has good composition, but the top shadow kinda ruins it for me --Nacaru 23:06, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The shadow is too disturbing for QI. -- Spurzem 12:45, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Nacaru and Spurzem. You could try with different RAW conversion settings (like increasing clarity and dynamics while reducing contrast) to reduce the extreme contrast between the bright and the dark part, but not sure if that would be enough. --Plozessor 04:39, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Such a composition could work if the gutter or the roof casting the shadow were visible in the picture. The way the object is shown here, the lighting is not suitable. Better to wait for a day when there is no direct sunlight. --Smial 15:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Beijing_city_subway_passage.jpg

  • Nomination A photo showing a dark passage within the Beijing Subway during the Chinese new year celebrations --Nacaru 11:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose The picture is too dark and I think you need to straighten it. --Shougissime 14:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Is the pic too dark or is that just what the environment looks like? That's an important distinction to make. --ReneeWrites 19:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  • The place was unusually dark for a metro corridor, it's why I took a picture of it. Also I cropped it a little on the left side to avoid having part of a wall poster on the frame. --Nacaru 21:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Opposing for now because it needs perspective correction (left side is leaning in, right side is straight). Brightness is ok. Shadows are a bit noisy, IMO still acceptable for the situation but maybe a bit stronger (chroma) noise reduction would further improve the image. --Plozessor 04:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good now.
  • ✓ Done. @PlozessorShougissime:​, perspective has been corrected and I have made it less dark. Nacaru 11:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks good to me. ReneeWrites 23:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 2 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:42, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Castello_di_Salorno_by_drone_01.jpg

  • Nomination Drone shot of Haderburg, Salorno, Italy--Syrio 09:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Nacaru 11:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. I think the image is a little bit to dark for QI. But I am not sure. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 13:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
    I'm agree with the comment above. If you can correct the darkness of the background, I think it could be a QI. --Shougissime 14:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
    I'm not great at color correction but I've tried; is it enough? --Syrio 16:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem --Nikride 13:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Good composition but it's still a bit dark and not very sharp. I don't think it's possible to improve it. Sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 14:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @SpurzemShougissime:​ I have tried to correct the color. --Syrio 10:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Interesting, but lower left part is too dark. --Milseburg 15:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Decline?   --Milseburg 15:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Bloemencorso_Zundert_2023_-_Afwas_1.png

  • Nomination Float of the 2023 flower parade of Zundert, titled "The dishes" --ReneeWrites 06:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Nice composition, but unfortunately lack of detail. --Alexander-93 07:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
    Disagree - appears sufficient detail given the subject photographed!
     Support Good quality. --Scotch Mist 09:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Alexander --Jakubhal 12:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. I don't understand what „lack of detail“ will say. I miss nothing. -- Spurzem 21:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good composition. Nacaru 09:03, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support If you zoom in the picture, it is true that there is a little lack of detail, but the composition and light are good. The topic of the picture is also interesting. --Shougissime 18:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Nothing wrong with this picture. --Plozessor 04:36, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:48, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

File:St_Martin_church_in_Limayrac_(3).jpg

  • Nomination Saint Martin church in Limayrac, Aveyron, France. --Tournasol7 04:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion  Support Good quality --Llez 05:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose. It looks like the church is tipping backwards. In addition, the lighting is very unfavorable. Please discuss whether the photo is a quality image or whether a better shot could be imagined. -- Spurzem 09:51, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem -- Екатерина Борисова 07:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Verticals are fine. Exposure is good enough IMO. --MB-one 10:26, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Per MB-one. --Sebring12Hrs 11:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 Comment. It's amazing: If the verticals are right, a picture is good. Everything else doesn't matter. Every day I understand more and more why I no longer present photos here. -- Spurzem 13:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 Comment I don't like your attitude with me. Repect my vote please. I understand your opinion about the perspective, but I think it's acceptable here. --Sebring12Hrs 12:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unnatural distortion due to over-corrected perspective from a close angle, sorry. Mike Peel 07:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  • From a purely technical point of view, the perspective correction has actually been done very well, in particular the image sharpness is significantly better than in some other photos with corresponding editing. Colors, contrasts and exposure are also very well done, and the anonymized license plates are hardly noticeable. On the one hand, I don't like such extreme wide-angle perspectives, but on the other hand, technically worse pictures with similar perspectives have won awards in the past. Because of the danger of double standards, therefore, a somewhat inconsistent weak  Support from me. --Smial 15:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I am one of those who dont look just verticals to be fine (agree with Spurzem), because you see then trapez structure. But since isnt FP nom, is ok for QI. --PetarM 17:42, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Don't always agree with Spurzem but here I do. I would skew the picture (so that the left part becomes lower while the right part remains as it is). Then it would look more natural (and verticals would still be correct). --Plozessor 04:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak support Per Smial --PaestumPaestum 08:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
     Comment I am not sure whether you wanted to close this, but please wait until the latest entry is at least 48 h old and please don't forget to change the status from "/Discuss" to the appropriate entry (such as "/Promotion") when you close the discussion about an image. I changed "QICresult" to "QICtotal". --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 6 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → Promote?   --Robert Flogaus-Faust 20:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

时间表(提名后8天)

  • 日 28 4月 → 一 06 5月
  • 一 29 4月 → 二 07 5月
  • 二 30 4月 → 三 08 5月
  • 三 01 5月 → 四 09 5月
  • 四 02 5月 → 五 10 5月
  • 五 03 5月 → 六 11 5月
  • 六 04 5月 → 日 12 5月
  • 日 05 5月 → 一 13 5月
  • 一 06 5月 → 二 14 5月