Commons:Kandydatury do grafik wysokiej jakości

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 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Outdated translations are marked like this.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
Przejdź do nominacji

Na tej stronie znajdują się kandydatury do grafik wysokiej jakości. Proszę nie mylić grafik wysokiej jakości z grafikami na medal. If you want informal feedback on your photos, please ask at Commons:Photography critiques.

Cel

The purpose of quality images is to encourage the people that are the foundation of Commons, the individual users who provide the unique images that expand this collection. While featured pictures identifies the absolute best of all the images loaded into Commons, Quality images sets out to identify and encourage users’ efforts in providing quality images to Commons. Additionally, quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image.


Wytyczne

Wszystkie nominowane zdjęcia muszą być stworzone przez jednego z użytkowników Wikimedia Commons.

Dla nominujących

Poniżej znajdują się ogólne wytyczne dotyczące jakości zdjęcia, bardziej szczegółowe kryteria dostępny w linku Image guidelines (en).

Wymagania co do strony
  1. Prawa autorskie. Grafika wysokiej jakości musi być przesłana do Commons pod właściwą licencją. Pełne wymagania co do licencji dostępne są na stronie oznaczenia licencji.
  2. Images should comply with all Commons policies and practices, including Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.
  3. Grafika wysokiej jakości powinna mieć wyrazistą nazwę, być odpowiednio skategoryzowana oraz mieć na stronie pliku opis w jednym lub więcej językach. Mile widziany, ale nie obowiązkowy, jest opis w języku angielskim.
  4. Grafika nie może zawierać reklam ani podpisów autora. Informacja o prawach autorskich i twórcy zawiera się na stronie opisu grafiki. Może także znaleźć się w metadanych pliku. Nie powinna jednak zawierać się w treści grafiki.

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

Zdjęcia muszą być utworzone przez jednego z użytkowników Wikimedia Commons. Oznacza, to że zdjęcia z serwisów takich jak Flickr nie będą mogły uzyskać statusu grafiki wysokiej jakości (w przypadku grafik na medal nie ma takiego ograniczenia). 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.


Wymagania techniczne

More detailed criteria are available at Commons:Image guidelines.

Rozdzielczość

Obrazy rastrowe (JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF) muszą mieć rozdzielczość przynajmniej 2 Mpx. Oceniający mogą zwrócić się do autora o plik w większej rozdzielczości, jeśli obiekt na zdjęciu może być względnie łatwo sfotografowany ponownie. Wymóg ten wynika z tego, że grafiki z Commons mogą być drukowane, oglądanie na monitorach o wysokiej rozdzielczości lub wykorzystywane w inny sposób.

Wysoka jakość

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.

Kompozycja i oświetlenie

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.

Wartość

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

Jak nominować

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

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Nomination|Bardzo krótki opis  --~~~~ |}}

Opis powinien być nie dłuższy niż kilka słów. Prosimy pozostawić pustą linię pomiędzy twoją a poprzednią nominacją.

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]]) --~~~~ |}}

Informacja: istnieje gadżet, QInominator, ułatwiający nominowanie grafik. 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.

Liczba nominacji

No more than five images per day can be added by a single nominator.

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

Ocenianie grafik

Każdy zarejestrowany użytkownik może recenzować grafiki

When evaluating images the reviewer should consider the same guidelines as the nominator.

Jak oceniać?

Jak zaktualizować status

Carefully review the image. Open it in full resolution, and check if the quality criteria are met.

  • If you decide to promote the nomination, change the relevant line from

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

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Promotion|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you liked it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Promotion and add your signature, possibly with some short comment.

  • If you decide to decline the nomination, change the relevant line from

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

File:ImageNameHere.jpg|{{/Decline|Very short description --Nominators signature |Why you didn't like it. --~~~~}}

In other words, change the template from /Nomination to /Decline and add your signature, possibly with a statement of the criteria under which the image failed (you can use titles of section from the guidelines). If there are many problems, please note only 2 or 3 of the most severe, or add multiple problems. When declining a nomination please do explain the reasons on the nominator’s talk page – as a rule, be nice and encouraging! In the message you should give a more detailed explanation of your decision.

Note: Please evaluate the oldest images first.

Grace period and promotion

If there are no objections within a period of 2 days (exactly 48 hours) from the first 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.

Jak wykonać decyzję

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 consider also nominating the image at Commons:Featured picture candidates.

Manual instructions (open only in cases of emergency)

If promoted,

  1. Add the image to appropriate group or groups of Quality images page. The image also needs to be added to the associated sub pages, only 3–4 of the newest images should be displayed on the main page.
  2. Add {{QualityImage}} template to the bottom of image description page.
  3. Move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives maj 2024.
  4. Add the template {{File:imagename.jpg}} to the user’s talk page.

Jeśli odrzucono,

  1. move the line with the image nomination and review to Commons:Quality images candidates/Archives maj 2024.
  • 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

Nieocenione zdjęcia (nominacja zakreślona na niebiesko)

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 May 20 2024 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 cannot make a decision, add your comments but leave the candidate on this page.

Zasady dyskusji

Zobacz Commons:Quality_images_candidates#Rules

Odśwież stronę: 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]] 15:17, 20 maj 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).


May 20, 2024

May 19, 2024

May 18, 2024

May 17, 2024

May 16, 2024

May 15, 2024

May 14, 2024

May 13, 2024

May 12, 2024

May 11, 2024

May 10, 2024

May 9, 2024

May 8, 2024

May 7, 2024

May 6, 2024

May 5, 2024

May 4, 2024

May 2, 2024

May 1, 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:Łódź_2023_42.jpg

  • Nomination Łódź Palace Tower Garden View --Scotch Mist 06:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --XRay 07:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The image seems a bit underexpoded, especially the western side of the tower. Pleas discuss about QI. -- Spurzem 16:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per Spurzem, also not ideal composition and perspective. --Plozessor 13:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Боровое._Большое_Чебачье_озеро.jpg

  • Nomination The Gulf of Naples on the Great Chebachy Lake, view from one of the rocks on the shore. Burabay national park. Burabay district Akmola region, Kazakhstan. By User:Евгений Емельянов --Красный 03:03, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Support Good quality. --Plozessor 04:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
     Oppose Too much noise and not enough sharp for a QI. --Remontees 17:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Egret_Flight_Reflection_Dawn_Harangi_Apr24_D72_26682.jpg

  • Nomination Medium egret (Ardea intermedia) in flight over Harangi Reservoir early morning, Suntikoppa, Coorg --Tagooty 00:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Amazing composition, but I'm afraid, the main subject doesn't show enough detail --MB-one 11:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Given the dawn lighting and motion, let's hear other opinions. --Tagooty 03:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Unfortunately I have to agree with MB-one. The bird has very little detail and isn't really sharp. --Plozessor 13:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Lyon_6e_-_Parc_de_la_Tête_d'Or_-_Statue_de_Bernard_de_Jussieu_-_Côté_droit.jpg

  • Nomination Statue de Bernard de Jussieu --Romainbehar 15:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 11:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

* Oppose Quality is good but neither hands nor face are visible here, and this is important when depicting a statue. Please discuss. --Екатерина Борисова 03:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

  •  Support "Côté_droit" in french is "right side" in english. Good quality. --Sebring12Hrs 11:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Is it not legitimate to take pictures from all sides? User also took a picture from the front, but this one shows the side of the statue. --Plozessor 13:29, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support This side view confuses me a little. But OK, thanks for the clarification. -- Екатерина Борисова 14:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Nagcha_of_Feija_National_Park.jpg

  • Nomination Nagcha of Feija National Park picture Captured from Aïn Techia while sunset. By User:Bill.pix --TOUMOU 19:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Remontees 21:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose The white balance seems off. Colors during sunset are usually very warm; here, everything is greenish. --Jakubhal 03:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Color balance is clearly off (the sky doesn't look green during sunset). Also, there's practically no detail, basically each mountain is just a green color gradient (but that's clearly a minor issue compared to the color). --Plozessor 09:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom 08:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Close_wing_pudding_position_of_Ochlodes_brahma_(Moore,_1878)_-_Grey-branded_Darter_IMG_0531.jpg

  • Nomination Close wing pudding position of Ochlodes brahma (Moore, 1878) - Grey-branded Darter. By User:Thamblyok --Atudu 08:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not a QI to me, sorry, it lacks detail --Poco a poco 12:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
    • I disagree, the focus plan is well chosen but if you wan all the animal focused, you need to use focus stacking techniques. --Remontees 21:58, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Majority of the insect is OOF, and the sharp parts seem random. --Plozessor 09:53, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom 08:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Ναός_Εισοδίων_της_Θεοτόκου_στο_Θίτι_DJI_0180.jpg

  • Nomination Top down view of the church of Eisodia Theotokou in Thiti, Attica. --C messier 19:24, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Not an acceptable composition for a QI. --Remontees 22:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. --MB-one 22:35, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support The shadows are a little dark, but the quality is good and top down views are useful. -- Екатерина Борисова 14:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --BigDom 08:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Looking_up_the_Liaison_slope_towards_Sommet_des_Rousses,_La_Thuile,_2024.jpg

  • Nomination La Thuile ski area, Italy --DimiTalen 17:28, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Comment Seems quite blurred --Remontees 23:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment This should not be here in CR, it has no votes for or against. Please don't send nominations straight to discussion without casting a vote. BigDom 08:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Indeed. But as it is here now, voting against because it really is blurry. --Plozessor 16:55, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 0 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom 08:00, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

File:2024_Hotel_i_restauracja_Śnieżnik_w_Kłodzku_(2).jpg

  • Nomination Śnieżnik hotel and restaurant in Kłodzko 2 --Jacek Halicki 01:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 02:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Name sign is blurry, perhaps camera shake? --Tagooty 02:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looking sharp to me. Maybe @Tagooty: your browser didn't load the image fully? --Plozessor 06:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Looks fine to me too. BigDom 02:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Jakubhal 06:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → Promote?   --BigDom 02:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Церква_Макіївка.jpg

  • Nomination Saints Peter and Paul church, Makiivka. Created by Олександр Олександрович Павленко. --Lystopad 16:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Nikride 20:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose IMHO overprocessed, there is a bright halo between the building and the sky. --C messier 13:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Weak oppose Overcontrasted (probably increased clarity and dynamics without decreasing contrast). Should not be hard to fix with better raw conversion though. --Plozessor 06:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Overprocessed as is, but agree with Plozessor that it should be fixable. BigDom 02:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --BigDom 02:40, 19 May 2024 (UTC))

File:Rippel_im_Sand_am_Strand_Norderneys_02.jpg

  • Nomination ripple marks at the beach of Norderney at sunset --Stephan Sprinz 19:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Zinnmann 10:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Slight tilted. I'm not convinced by the sharpness and the presentation of the sun. Looks oversaturated. --Milseburg 15:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 1 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 10:42, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Cat_in_Piran,_Slovenia,_20240504_1659_8682.jpg

  • Nomination Cat in Piran, Slovenia --Jakubhal 05:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 05:37, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Photographing black cats is difficult; I know from experience. Here you can see almost no difference between the animal's snout and chest. The sharpness should also be better. For me the photo is not a quality image. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 13:12, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry: Underexposure  Underexposed and insufficient DoF --F. Riedelio 06:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
     Comment The cat has sharp eyes, and in most cases I've seen here, that was sufficient for a QI. --Jakubhal 19:40, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per F. Riedelio --Plozessor 06:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
     Comment @Spurzem: @F. Riedelio: @Plozessor: - I brightened the photo Jakubhal 19:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 1 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → Decline?   --Plozessor 06:50, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Government_office_in_The_Hague_housing_the_Dutch_Ministry_of_Justice_and_Security_(2019).jpg

  • Nomination Government office housing the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security, The Hague, Netherlands --S. Perquin 18:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Unsharp, sorry. --Kallerna 11:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I disagree. Picture is sharp enough. Great composition too. --Nacaru 08:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok to me. --Sebring12Hrs 11:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Picture is sharp, but overexposed a bit. Maybe lights correction can help? Красный 22:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Great composition and lighting, good quality for a smartphone, can't see any overexposed areas --Julesvernex2 21:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Looks like the lens is a little foggy in the middle. --Milseburg 16:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 3 oppose → More votes?   --Milseburg 16:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Škoda_Superb_IV_Combi_IMG_9982.jpg

  • Nomination Škoda Superb IV Combi in Stuttgart --Alexander-93 16:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't like the reflections in the windshield at all. In addition, the car is very crowded and the cut is unnecessarily narrow. Please discuss whether this photo is really a QI. -- Spurzem 20:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose per Spurzem. --Smial 12:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support shiny objects reflect lights. That's not a photographic defect. One could argue that the crop is quite narrow, but that's still a matter of taste. Overall good quality. --MB-one 08:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Ok. --Plozessor 04:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 3 support (excluding the nominator), 2 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 04:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Beechcraft_Staggerwing_D17S_NC67555_FDK_MD2.jpg

  • Nomination Beechcraft Staggerwing at Frederick Municipal Airport, Maryland --Acroterion 01:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Unsigned nomination --Plozessor 03:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Signature repaired. Acroterion 12:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Can we get a review based on the image rather than the signature? --Acroterion 13:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support See below. --Plozessor 06:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality. Interesting subject. There is some potential for FP IMO --LexKurochkin 08:09, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Neutral Actually not bad, but I wonder how the strange artifacts between the characters of the lettering on the wing came about. --Smial 12:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
    • It is easy to get artifacts in text in 400mm images of moving objects like that in post, and lifting the shadows under planes against a bright sky, even in RAW, can be tricky. I'll see if I can correct it. Acroterion 18:22, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
    • I've fixed the ghosting around the lettering, and adjusted the white balance a little to take out some green. Acroterion 01:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 Support good rework. --Smial 16:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good enough now --Robert Flogaus-Faust 11:26, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. Good image and good quality, not only good enough as I think -- Spurzem 16:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 06:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Howard_DGA-15P_NC67423_FDK_MD2.jpg

  • Nomination Howard DGA-15P at Frederick Municipal Airport, Maryland --Acroterion 01:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
  •  Oppose Unsigned nomination --Plozessor 03:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Signature repaired Acroterion 12:05, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Can we get a review based on the image rather than the signature? --Acroterion 13:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Sure, as soon as the nomination is valid. Would have changed my vote earlier, unfortunately I had to leave for a business trip and forgot everything else. --Plozessor 06:46, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Good quality --Jakubhal 05:30, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support --LexKurochkin 08:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support ok. --Smial 12:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. Beautiful -- Spurzem 16:57, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 5 support (excluding the nominator), 0 oppose → Promote?   --Plozessor 06:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Знаменка._Дворец._детали_04.jpg

  • Nomination Window pediment of Palace of Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolaevich. Znamenka estate, Peterhof, Saint Petersburg, Russia --Екатерина Борисова 05:48, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Discussion
     Oppose Out of focus --Romainbehar 06:11, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support. Sharp enough. Please discuss. -- Spurzem 14:19, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support per Spurzem. Somewhat tight crop, and somewhat noisy, but good enough for an A4-size print. --Smial 10:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Not very sharp, sorry. --Sebring12Hrs 11:19, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Either some colleagues have problems with connection, so image is uploading badly or are being too strict. This photo is enough sharp to illustrate articles even in larger sizes. Красный 18:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support Sharp enough, given the high resolution. --Plozessor 04:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I don't think the detail level is high enough. Possibly explained by the fact that this is a small compact camera.--Peulle 08:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Sorry, while I think the level of detail is borderline high enough, I think it needs better composition. Bottom right side touches the edge while bottom left doesn't, top-left side shows the corner while top-right doesn't. Nacaru 00:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Running total: 4 support (excluding the nominator), 4 oppose → More votes?   --Nacaru 00:10, 16 May 2024 (UTC) 21:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Harmonogram (dzień 8 po nominacji)

  • N 12 maj → Pn 20 maj
  • Pn 13 maj → Wt 21 maj
  • Wt 14 maj → Śr 22 maj
  • Śr 15 maj → Cz 23 maj
  • Cz 16 maj → Pt 24 maj
  • Pt 17 maj → So 25 maj
  • So 18 maj → N 26 maj
  • N 19 maj → Pn 27 maj
  • Pn 20 maj → Wt 28 maj