Commons:Closed most valued reviews/2010/02

Xerochrysum subundulatum (Alpine everlasting)

View opposition Nominated by: 99of9 (talk) on 2010-01-28 06:00 (UTC) Scope: Xerochrysum subundulatum (Alpine everlasting) Used in: w:Xerochrysum subundulatum Reason: A species not previously in our database. Shows both a bud and an open flower. -- 99of9 (talk) a whole plant  Support all criteria met, rare object. Photo in good quality --George Chernilevsky talk 14:47, 28 January 2010 (UTC)  Support per George. MathKnight 21:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)  Question Good stuff. Do you happen to have alternative shots of this species available? I would have liked to see more of the plant than a bud and an open flower, like the leaves. Even if they are not of the same quality as this one, it could be of value for Commons for illustrating this species? --Slaunger (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)  Comment You want two for the price of one eh? :-) Lucky it was free in the first place. I've had a look through my folder, and uploaded the best. Unfortunately the pretty flowers drew most of my attention! Does this mean I should swap the VIC nom to the one with more plant in it? Or should I have put them both up as a set? --99of9 (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Nice, thank you for uploading that supplementary photo. It is nice to see the plant in its entirety. For me it would not qualify for VI with the plant species scope though as I think the lightning on the new parts of the plant is too dark as compared to the flower and buds. However, other reviewers may have other opinions about this inwhich case your new photo should also be nominated as a VIC within the same scope such that they could compete against each other in a most valued review. Having the two photos together as a valued image set candidate would not make much meaning for me. As that is not really what the sets are for IMO. --Slaunger (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC) another in-between option Ok, I've nearly caught on. I've found a third one to consider. It's from a different (wider field) shot... see the revision history, which included another plant, but I've cropped it to include mainly the well lit portion of the front plant. --99of9 (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Thank you, I slightly prefer the last version and I find it promotable within the scope, so I have set up a MVR, where i have also added your first alternative in case anyone should prefer that. --Slaunger (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)  Oppose It is a very good photo of the flower and bud of this interesting species. However, for a plant species scope the nominated image should IMO show the plants more in its entirety. Since we only have these two photos, I could be convinced though to support it with a ", flower and bud" subscope appended, although other reviewers may find that is cornering the intention behind plant subscopes. --Slaunger (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Scores: 1. Xerochrysum: +1 2. Xerochrysum subundulatum plant.jpg: +0 3. Xerochrysum subundulatum plants.jpg: +2 => File:Xerochrysum subundulatum.jpg: Declined. File:Xerochrysum subundulatum plant.jpg: Declined. File:Xerochrysum subundulatum plants.jpg: Promoted. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Slaunger (talk) on 2010-02-02 20:00 (UTC) Scope: Xerochrysum subundulatum (Alpine everlasting) Reason: This version is the one which shows the plants most in its entirety cf. species scope. -- Slaunger (talk) Scores: 1. Xerochrysum: +1 2. Xerochrysum subundulatum plant.jpg: +0 3. Xerochrysum subundulatum plants.jpg: +2 => File:Xerochrysum subundulatum.jpg: Declined. File:Xerochrysum subundulatum plant.jpg: Declined. File:Xerochrysum subundulatum plants.jpg: Promoted. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View promotion Nominated by: Slaunger (talk) on 2010-02-02 20:05 (UTC) Scope: Xerochrysum subundulatum (Alpine everlasting) Reason: Possibly the best compromise between showing the plant in its entirety, filling the frame, and acceptable lightning. -- Slaunger (talk)  Support Among the candidates, I have a slight preference for this one. --Slaunger (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)  Support Was the only showing flower, buds and leaves .... The background does not interfere with understanding. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Scores: 1. Xerochrysum: +1 2. Xerochrysum subundulatum plant.jpg: +0 3. Xerochrysum subundulatum plants.jpg: +2 => File:Xerochrysum subundulatum.jpg: Declined. File:Xerochrysum subundulatum plant.jpg: Declined. File:Xerochrysum subundulatum plants.jpg: Promoted. --George Chernilevsky talk 09:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Mirów Castle

View opposition Nominated by: Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk on 2010-02-07 21:42 (UTC) Scope: Mirów Castle Reason: A nice image of the Mirów Castle. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk  Oppose An image showing the whole castle, like this one for instance, would be preferable to illustrate the scope, IMO. I'll set up a MVR. --Myrabella (talk) 12:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC) MVR set up. --Myrabella (talk) 12:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Scores: 1. Mirów Castle - 15.JPG: -1 2. Zamek w Mirowie 12.08.08 p4-k.jpg: +2 => File:Mirów Castle - 15.JPG: Declined. File:Zamek w Mirowie 12.08.08 p4-k.jpg: Promoted. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Myrabella (talk) on 2010-02-09 12:33 (UTC) Scope: Mirów Castle Reason: An image showing the whole castle is preferable to illustrate the scope, IMO. -- Myrabella (talk)  Support After reading the scope, this image is the best and most informative. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Scores: 1. Mirów Castle - 15.JPG: -1 2. Zamek w Mirowie 12.08.08 p4-k.jpg: +2 => File:Mirów Castle - 15.JPG: Declined. File:Zamek w Mirowie 12.08.08 p4-k.jpg: Promoted. --George Chernilevsky talk 08:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Jumping dolphins

View opposition Nominated by: Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk on 2010-01-23 19:48 (UTC) Scope: Jumping dolphins Reason: A quality image of mine; I wonder if it also fits the criteria for our valued images? Description: "Dolphins at Loro Parque, in Tenerife island (Spain)." -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk  Comment The chosen scope isn't suitable IMO. I would suggest to create a new Commons category: "Category:Jumping cetaceans" that would be a sub category of Category:Jumping animals and of Category:Cetacea, to sort the images on Commons that may be classified in that new category (I can give a hand ;-), and to nominate your image with this new scope, linked to that new category. --Myrabella (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC) Sounds like a good plan, I've created the Category:Jumping cetaceans. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:02, 24 January 2010 (UTC) I've sorted a bunch of images and created a sub sub cat Category:Jumping dolphins. So I suggest to modify the scope to Animals (Dolphins); Performance;Jumping dolphins, (Cetacea) but simply reword it as follows: Jumping dolphins, if you agree with that suggestion. --Myrabella (talk) 04:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)  Request Scope (see discussion above) and geocoding (criterion 5). --Myrabella (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Changed category per your suggestion; as for geotagging, I tried adding the coordinates from en wiki article to our gallery at Loro Parque, but it defaults to NE, when it should be NW. I don't know how to fix it :( I don't have the exact geo coordinates of where I took the photo - should we use the gallery coordinates, once we fix the NE/NW issue? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC) I've corrected the geotag of the gallery, as it pointed to a desert place in Lybia ;-). I've also added a possible geotag in your image - please check if it is plausible. --Myrabella (talk) 21:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Excellent - it is either those stands or the larger ones, but at this point I frankly don't remember. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)  Comment The review itself, now :-): this image is nice, but I tend to prefer that one for illustrating the scope because it shows the animals face on. So I am going to set up a Most Valued Review (MVR). --Myrabella (talk) 08:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC) MVR scores: Commons:Valued image candidates/Dolphins at Loro Parque 13.JPG: 0 <-- Commons:Valued image candidates/Dolphins at Loro Parque 04-crop.JPG: 0 Commons:Valued image candidates/Dolphins Loro Parque BW 1.jpg: +2 Commons:Valued image candidates/Dolphins Loro Parque BW 4.jpg: 0 Results: File:Dolphins at Loro Parque 13.JPG: Declined <-- File:Dolphins at Loro Parque 04-crop.JPG: Declined File:Dolphins Loro Parque BW 1.jpg: Promoted File:Dolphins Loro Parque BW 4.jpg: Declined --Slaunger (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Myrabella (talk) on 2010-01-27 08:29 (UTC) Scope: Jumping dolphins Reason: I tend to prefer that image for illustrating the scope because it shows the animals face on. --Myrabella -- Myrabella (talk) I am biased, of course, but how about passing both as valued images? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC) No, both images can't be passed as valued images, because a VI "'is the most valuable illustration of its kind on Commons", "the most valuable [one] within a suitably generic scope" => only one picture by scope (nominating a set of images as for valued image set (VIS) status is possible but must fulfill the further demanding requirement that the set is more valuable as a whole than each single image).--Myrabella (talk) 09:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC) MVR scores: Commons:Valued image candidates/Dolphins at Loro Parque 13.JPG: 0 Commons:Valued image candidates/Dolphins at Loro Parque 04-crop.JPG: 0 <-- Commons:Valued image candidates/Dolphins Loro Parque BW 1.jpg: +2 Commons:Valued image candidates/Dolphins Loro Parque BW 4.jpg: 0 Results: File:Dolphins at Loro Parque 13.JPG: Declined File:Dolphins at Loro Parque 04-crop.JPG: Declined <-- File:Dolphins Loro Parque BW 1.jpg: Promoted File:Dolphins Loro Parque BW 4.jpg: Declined --Slaunger (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View promotion Nominated by: Berthold Werner (talk) on 2010-01-29 18:41 (UTC) Scope: Jumping dolphins I like this one, makes a good companion to the two others (mine) nominated above; this one has no humans - just animals. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)  Support The competition is pretty hard but among the nominated images. I think this one (marginally) illustrates the scope best as I find the presence of humans in some competing photos a little distracting. Another aspect of tis MVR is the scope which I thought about for a while is the plural dolphins. Maybe a singular "jumping dolphin" would have been just as or perhaps slightly more relevant, as the added aspect of having several gives less detals to show the actual jump of an animal in review size. On the other hand the plural gives the added element of the synchronous jump of several dolphins, which I find fascinating. Finally, I think the categorization effort made in relation to this MVR is a good piece of spin-off work (thanks for doing that), which is an asset of this project. --Slaunger (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)  Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC) MVR scores: Commons:Valued image candidates/Dolphins at Loro Parque 13.JPG: 0 Commons:Valued image candidates/Dolphins at Loro Parque 04-crop.JPG: 0 Commons:Valued image candidates/Dolphins Loro Parque BW 1.jpg: +2 <-- Commons:Valued image candidates/Dolphins Loro Parque BW 4.jpg: 0 Results: File:Dolphins at Loro Parque 13.JPG: Declined File:Dolphins at Loro Parque 04-crop.JPG: Declined File:Dolphins Loro Parque BW 1.jpg: Promoted <-- File:Dolphins Loro Parque BW 4.jpg: Declined --Slaunger (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Berthold Werner (talk) on 2010-01-29 19:12 (UTC) Scope: Jumping dolphins MVR scores: Commons:Valued image candidates/Dolphins at Loro Parque 13.JPG: 0 Commons:Valued image candidates/Dolphins at Loro Parque 04-crop.JPG: 0 Commons:Valued image candidates/Dolphins Loro Parque BW 1.jpg: +2 Commons:Valued image candidates/Dolphins Loro Parque BW 4.jpg: 0 <-- Results: File:Dolphins at Loro Parque 13.JPG: Declined File:Dolphins at Loro Parque 04-crop.JPG: Declined File:Dolphins Loro Parque BW 1.jpg: Promoted File:Dolphins Loro Parque BW 4.jpg: Declined <-- --Slaunger (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Caroní River

View opposition Nominated by: Berru (talk) on 2010-02-10 21:29 (UTC) Scope: Caroní River Reason: The only pictures where the river itself is shown in Commons. Other pictures show dams and falls, mainly Llovizna and Cachamai. Here we see the river as it streches it's rather untamed flow through the forest. -- Berru (talk)  Comment It's somewhat difficult to say if the nominated image illustrates the Caroní River well enough (criterion 3), because "one of the characteristics of her water is the dark color, caused by the high amount of humic acids due to the incomplete decomposition of the phenol content of the vegetation. The Caroni therefore belongs to the blackwater rivers." according to en:Caroní River. Can we tell that this main feature appears clearly here? (in comparison, see the dark color in those images: 1 and 3, showing the confluence with the Orinoco river however). The fact that it is pictured during he low-water period due to the dry season might be a difficulty to reach criterion 3 too. --Myrabella (talk) 18:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC) Dry season levels of a river is not more neither less typical than wet season level. Both season last around 6 month. The caroni river is a black river, but it true that this is not very visible in this picture. Nevertheless, it is the color it did have when I took it. I have other images of the Caroni taken the same day, and the color always is like coffe with milk. And it is the Caroni... In the Gurri lake, the color of the water is dark. bellow this lake, the river is dark, but it became more a staircase of dam lakes than a river. A river starts as a small stream and sometimes finishes as something enormous. It is very difficult to have a 'typical' view of the river. Here, we have an image of an unremarkable strech of the midstream of the Caroni. --Berru (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC) It's often hard to have a 'typical' view of the chosen scope, but it's the aim and ideal of VIs :-) It seems that being a black river is a strong characteristic of that river; a second one is to be suited to generating hydroelectric energy. That NASA image is an interesting candidate in this respect. It is poorly documented in Commons but fully commented here. Perhaps the scope would deserve a MVR. --Myrabella (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)  Oppose Criterion 3 not met, IMO, see dicussion above. I also vote for keeping this nomination open—this case is interesting! I intend to set up a MVR but the possible alternative image needs to be more documented, and I need a small delay to do it. --Myrabella (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC) MVR set up. --Myrabella (talk) 16:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC) I am of course a bit biased since this is a picture I made, but I would like to make two comments. First, a general comment about plane/ground photography versus satellite. Be carefull not to alway chose satellite images: they are too abstract in my opinion. Concerning the Caroni river, it is a > 770 km long river finishing with a large dam lake and a dam staircase totaling 200 km. The 570 km of unspoiled wild river are also part of the Caroni river...--Berru (talk) 10:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC) MVR Scores: 1. 6836 Le Caroni.jpg: -1 <-- 2. Embalse Guri.JPG: +1 => File:6836 Le Caroni.jpg: Declined. <-- File:Embalse Guri.JPG: Promoted. --Myrabella (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Myrabella (talk) on 2010-02-19 16:40 (UTC) Scope: Caroní River Reason: This image better depicts the two main features of Caroní River IMO: firstly to be a “black river”, secondly to be suited to generating hydroelectric energy. It's the reason why it could be more appropriate to illustrate the scope. --Myrabella (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC) -- Myrabella (talk)  Support This image is the most didactic in scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC) MVR Scores: 1. 6836 Le Caroni.jpg: -1 2. Embalse Guri.JPG: +1 <-- => File:6836 Le Caroni.jpg: Declined. File:Embalse Guri.JPG: Promoted. <-- --Myrabella (talk) 16:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)