Commons:Closed most valued reviews/2011/06

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Closed most valued reviews/2011/06

Salone dei Cinquecento

[edit]
   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2011-05-24 14:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Salone dei Cinquecento

 Support This image has good color temperature (see the green, tapestries) - (the other image was too hot.) This definition is also much better --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:59, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

Scores: 
1. Palazzo Vecchio - grand hall.jpg: +1
2. Firenze-palazzo vecchio 24.jpg: +2
=>
File:Palazzo Vecchio - grand hall.jpg: Declined.
File:Firenze-palazzo vecchio 24.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 08:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2011-05-24 14:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Salone dei Cinquecento
✓ Done --Eusebius (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - Difficult to choose which one is better. I prefer the warmer.--MrPanyGoff 12:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support - The windows at the end are not overexposed and the POV is off the centerline. Both make this a better depiction, I think (criterion #3). The color balance could be tweaked, but I don't think it is too far off. It is difficult to know without a grey reference surface in the field of view. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scores: 
1. Palazzo Vecchio - grand hall.jpg: +1
2. Firenze-palazzo vecchio 24.jpg: +2
=>
File:Palazzo Vecchio - grand hall.jpg: Declined.
File:Firenze-palazzo vecchio 24.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 08:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Epupa Falls

[edit]
   

View opposition
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-05-26 14:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Epupa Falls

Scores: 

1. Epupa falls 1.jpg: +0
2. Epupafaelle2.JPG: +0 
3. Epupa Falls (detail).jpg: +0 
4. Epupa Falls 2.jpg: +2
=>
File:Epupa falls 1.jpg: Declined.
File:Epupafaelle2.JPG: Declined.
File:Epupa Falls (detail).jpg: Declined.
File:Epupa Falls 2.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 19:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-05-26 14:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Epupa Falls

Scores: 

1. Epupa falls 1.jpg: +0
2. Epupafaelle2.JPG: +0 
3. Epupa Falls (detail).jpg: +0 
4. Epupa Falls 2.jpg: +2
=>
File:Epupa falls 1.jpg: Declined.
File:Epupafaelle2.JPG: Declined.
File:Epupa Falls (detail).jpg: Declined.
File:Epupa Falls 2.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 19:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-05-26 14:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Epupa Falls

Scores: 

1. Epupa falls 1.jpg: +0
2. Epupafaelle2.JPG: +0 
3. Epupa Falls (detail).jpg: +0 
4. Epupa Falls 2.jpg: +2
=>
File:Epupa falls 1.jpg: Declined.
File:Epupafaelle2.JPG: Declined.
File:Epupa Falls (detail).jpg: Declined.
File:Epupa Falls 2.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 19:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-05-26 14:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Epupa Falls

 Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

Scores: 
1. Epupa falls 1.jpg: +0
2. Epupafaelle2.JPG: +0 
3. Epupa Falls (detail).jpg: +0 
4. Epupa Falls 2.jpg: +2
=>
File:Epupa falls 1.jpg: Declined.
File:Epupafaelle2.JPG: Declined.
File:Epupa Falls (detail).jpg: Declined.
File:Epupa Falls 2.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 19:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Arco de Santa Catalina, Antigua Guatemala

[edit]
   

View opposition
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-06-01 10:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Arco de Santa Catalina, Antigua Guatemala

Scores: 

1. Arco de Santa Catalina Antigua Guatemala edit1.jpg: +0
2. Arco de Santa Catalina Antigua Guatemala edit2.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Arco de Santa Catalina Antigua Guatemala edit1.jpg: Declined.
File:Arco de Santa Catalina Antigua Guatemala edit2.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 21:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-06-01 10:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Arco de Santa Catalina, Antigua Guatemala

 Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

Scores: 
1. Arco de Santa Catalina Antigua Guatemala edit1.jpg: +0
2. Arco de Santa Catalina Antigua Guatemala edit2.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Arco de Santa Catalina Antigua Guatemala edit1.jpg: Declined.
File:Arco de Santa Catalina Antigua Guatemala edit2.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 21:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Beit Hatfutsot Museum

[edit]
   

View promotion
Nominated by:
Tomer T (talk) on 2011-06-02 16:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Beit Hatfutsot Museum
  •  Comment I'm thinking about the spelling of the name. You suggest one. En:wikipedia uses Beth Hatefutsoth. De:wikipedia uses Beit Hatefutsot. Official web site is Beit Hatfutsot. So, which one?--MrPanyGoff 19:00, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Ha" is "the" in Hebrew. I don't think there is any formal decision of how to write it in English. The first part of the name (Beth/Beit) can be written either way I think, but "Beit" is more accurate. And actually, you made a good point, because the name of the category here in Commons (with which I spelled the scope) is wrong, as well as the English article and I think also the German one (I'm not really sure about the German pronunciation). The correct spelling would be Beit Hatfutsot (like the official website of the museum suggests). Regards, Tomer T (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for clarification. The scope has to link some category but doesn't has to be named word for word after it. So I think that the scope name here should be changed to Beit Hatfutsot Museum as in the official web site. --MrPanyGoff 08:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Tomer T (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:) You are a nominator here the adjustment of the scope is enough.--MrPanyGoff 21:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Support - I find this photo most representative of the subject, for now, in commons.--MrPanyGoff 21:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

Scores: 
1. PikiWiki Israel 6869 museum of the diaspora.jpg: +1
2. Beth Hatefutsoth3.JPG: +0 
3. PikiWiki Israel 6951 museum of the diaspora.jpg: +0 
=>
File:PikiWiki Israel 6869 museum of the diaspora.jpg: Promoted.
File:Beth Hatefutsoth3.JPG: Declined.
File:PikiWiki Israel 6951 museum of the diaspora.jpg: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 10:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
Tomer T (talk) on 2011-06-02 16:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Beit Hatfutsot Museum

Scores: 

1. PikiWiki Israel 6869 museum of the diaspora.jpg: +1
2. Beth Hatefutsoth3.JPG: +0 
3. PikiWiki Israel 6951 museum of the diaspora.jpg: +0 
=>
File:PikiWiki Israel 6869 museum of the diaspora.jpg: Promoted.
File:Beth Hatefutsoth3.JPG: Declined.
File:PikiWiki Israel 6951 museum of the diaspora.jpg: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 10:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
Tomer T (talk) on 2011-06-02 16:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Beit Hatfutsot Museum

Scores: 

1. PikiWiki Israel 6869 museum of the diaspora.jpg: +1
2. Beth Hatefutsoth3.JPG: +0 
3. PikiWiki Israel 6951 museum of the diaspora.jpg: +0 
=>
File:PikiWiki Israel 6869 museum of the diaspora.jpg: Promoted.
File:Beth Hatefutsoth3.JPG: Declined.
File:PikiWiki Israel 6951 museum of the diaspora.jpg: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 10:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Auditorio de Tenerife

[edit]
   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Wladyslaw (talk) on 2011-05-31 11:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Auditorio de Tenerife

 Support Good Choice --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now you can open a MVR with the two candidates.--MrPanyGoff 18:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC) Actually I'm going to do it so that your vote to be taken into consideration ;) --MrPanyGoff 18:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scores: 
1. Auditorio de Tenerife Seitlich.jpg: +0
2. Auditorio de Tenerife Pano.jpg: +1
=>
File:Auditorio de Tenerife Seitlich.jpg: Declined.
File:Auditorio de Tenerife Pano.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 10:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-06-02 18:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Auditorio de Tenerife
Reason:
Per Tomer T suggestion. After all it is a FP. -- MrPanyGoff
Scores: 
1. Auditorio de Tenerife Seitlich.jpg: +0
2. Auditorio de Tenerife Pano.jpg: +1
=>
File:Auditorio de Tenerife Seitlich.jpg: Declined.
File:Auditorio de Tenerife Pano.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 10:49, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Auditorio de Tenerife, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, España, 2012-12-15, DD 02.jpg: +3 (current VI within same scope) 
2. Auditorio de Tenerife Pano.jpg: 0 (current VI within same scope) <--
=>
File:Auditorio de Tenerife, Santa Cruz de Tenerife, España, 2012-12-15, DD 02.jpg: Promoted again and remaining VI.
File:Auditorio de Tenerife Pano.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <--
--Myrabella (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

La Merced Church, Antigua Guatemala (exterior)

[edit]
   

View promotion
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-06-03 07:31 (UTC)
Scope:
La Merced Church, Antigua Guatemala (exterior)

 SupportFewer people and cars in this picture. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

Scores: 
1. La Merced Church Antigua Guatemala 2.jpg: +2
2. La Merced Church Antigua Guatemala.jpg: +0 
=>
File:La Merced Church Antigua Guatemala 2.jpg: Promoted.
File:La Merced Church Antigua Guatemala.jpg: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 10:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-06-03 07:32 (UTC)
Scope:
La Merced Church, Antigua Guatemala (exterior)

Scores: 

1. La Merced Church Antigua Guatemala 2.jpg: +2
2. La Merced Church Antigua Guatemala.jpg: +0 
=>
File:La Merced Church Antigua Guatemala 2.jpg: Promoted.
File:La Merced Church Antigua Guatemala.jpg: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 10:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Odessa Opera Theatre (exterior)

[edit]
   

View promotion
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-06-06 06:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Odessa Opera Theatre (exterior)

 Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

Scores: 
1. Odessa Opera Theatre.jpg: +2
2. Opernhaus Odessa.jpg: +0
3. P4210623.JPG: +0
=>
File:Odessa Opera Theatre.jpg: Promoted.
File:Opernhaus Odessa.jpg: Declined.
File:P4210623.JPG: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 10:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-06-06 06:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Odessa Opera Theatre (exterior)

Scores: 

1. Odessa Opera Theatre.jpg: +2
2. Opernhaus Odessa.jpg: +0
3. P4210623.JPG: +0
=>
File:Odessa Opera Theatre.jpg: Promoted.
File:Opernhaus Odessa.jpg: Declined.
File:P4210623.JPG: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 10:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
Commons:Valued image candidates/Одесский театр оперы и балета.jpg

Ortaköy Mosque, exterior

[edit]
   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Darwinek (talk) on 2011-06-07 21:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Ortaköy Mosque, exterior
Reason:
Very good photo of one of the most popular Istanbul landmarks. -- Darwinek (talk)

Previous review

  •  Comment - Could you add a camera location please. Nice photo but it is difficult to choose one image in this category. Here (1, 2) other two good competitors. --MrPanyGoff 23:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added the camera location. It is taken from the shore, while those two images from the boat. - Darwinek (talk) 09:07, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment - Yes, it is beautiful but the main body of the mosque cannot be seen well.--MrPanyGoff 06:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scores: 
1. İstanbul 4228.jpg: +1
2. Mosque of Ortaköy.JPG: +0 
3. Istanbul - Mesquita d'Ortaköy.JPG: +0 
=>
File:İstanbul 4228.jpg: Promoted.
File:Mosque of Ortaköy.JPG: Declined.
File:Istanbul - Mesquita d'Ortaköy.JPG: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 08:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Renominated because two VIs exist for the same scope --Myrabella (talk) 00:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
=>New review: 

Scores: 
1. İstanbul 4228.jpg: 0 (current VI within same scope) <--
3. Büyük Mecidiye Camii - Ortaköy Mosque.jpg: +2 (current VI within same scope)
=>
File:İstanbul 4228.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <--
File:Büyük Mecidiye Camii - Ortaköy Mosque.jpg: Promoted and kept.
--Ikar.us (talk) 11:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-06-09 08:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Ortaköy Mosque, exterior

Scores: 

1. İstanbul 4228.jpg: +1
2. Mosque of Ortaköy.JPG: +0 
3. Istanbul - Mesquita d'Ortaköy.JPG: +0 
=>
File:İstanbul 4228.jpg: Promoted.
File:Mosque of Ortaköy.JPG: Declined.
File:Istanbul - Mesquita d'Ortaköy.JPG: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 08:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-06-09 08:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Ortaköy Mosque, exterior

Scores: 

1. İstanbul 4228.jpg: +1
2. Mosque of Ortaköy.JPG: +0 
3. Istanbul - Mesquita d'Ortaköy.JPG: +0 
=>
File:İstanbul 4228.jpg: Promoted.
File:Mosque of Ortaköy.JPG: Declined.
File:Istanbul - Mesquita d'Ortaköy.JPG: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 08:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Chocolate Hills, Philippines

[edit]
   

View promotion
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-06-10 21:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Chocolate Hills, Philippines

 Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment Also here you should probably state that the geocoding is approximate given the google earth resolution of the area. Unless you of course found a better way to obtain the coordinates? W.S. 16:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scores: 
1. Chocolate Hills - edit.jpg: +1
2. Panorama Chocolate Hills.jpg: +0
=>
File:Chocolate Hills - edit.jpg: Promoted.
File:Panorama Chocolate Hills.jpg: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 22:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-06-10 21:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Chocolate Hills, Philippines
  •  Oppose Not geocoded I think. W.S. 11:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Indeed, though you should probably state that the geocoding is approximate given the google earth resolution of the area. W.S. 15:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done - Geocoded now.--MrPanyGoff 12:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scores: 
1. Chocolate Hills - edit.jpg: +1
2. Panorama Chocolate Hills.jpg: +0
=>
File:Chocolate Hills - edit.jpg: Promoted.
File:Panorama Chocolate Hills.jpg: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 22:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Glenfinnan Viaduct

[edit]
   

View opposition
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-06-13 12:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Glenfinnan Viaduct

Scores: 

1. Glenfinnan Viaduct - Scotland.jpg: +0
2. Glenfinnan Viaduct.jpg: +2
=>
File:Glenfinnan Viaduct - Scotland.jpg: Declined.
File:Glenfinnan Viaduct.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 22:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-06-13 12:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Glenfinnan Viaduct

 Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

Scores: 
1. Glenfinnan Viaduct - Scotland.jpg: +0
2. Glenfinnan Viaduct.jpg: +2
=>
File:Glenfinnan Viaduct - Scotland.jpg: Declined.
File:Glenfinnan Viaduct.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 22:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Vivien Leigh

[edit]
   
[[File:|120px]]
View promotion
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-06-12 12:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Vivien Leigh
Reason:
Very good representative portrait of the actress. Studio shot. -- MrPanyGoff

 Comment Very hard choice, personally I chose File: Vivien Leigh Gone Wind Restaured.jpg. This image is legendary. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment - It becomes a good match. :))) For now the score is tied.--MrPanyGoff 09:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

Scores: 
1. Vivien Leigh still.jpg: +3
2. Vivien Leigh Gone Wind Restaured.jpg: +2
=>
[[:]]: Promoted.
File:Vivien Leigh Gone Wind Restaured.jpg: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 00:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
Commons:Valued image candidates/Vivien Leigh Gone Wind Restored.jpg

The 24 hours clock of the Florence Cathedral

[edit]
   

View promotion
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2011-06-17 22:04 (UTC)
Scope:
The 24 hours clock of the Florence Cathedral
Reason:
    1. Made by a wikipedian (I know it is not a mandatory nor a criterium, but...)
    2. geocoded
    3. higher size
    4. shows a part of the environment of the subject. -- Jebulon (talk)

 Comment Why not scope=Santa Maria del Fiore Clock or The Florence Cathedral Clock.--MrPanyGoff 22:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment This subject is a very difficult case. Both photos are very good, detailed and gives great information about the decoration of the dial. But I'm not sure if they both depicts the subject well. I think that very important things for this clock are: 1.Location, 2.Scale and 3. Decoration. Both images give us good idea about "3" and no idea about "1" and "2". At first, I thought that this is a desk clock with size 15/15cm which is placed in some museum glass-case.--MrPanyGoff 23:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Location: Please see the names of the: file, category, nomination.+ geocode.
  • Scale: Please see the file description page. But I partially agree, that's why I prefer this one, which shows a part of the wall, and the pedestal.
  • Decoration: Do you wish I add "by Paolo Uccello" (even if you may read the "creator template" in the file description page) ?
  • Another important thing is the 24 hours dial, IMO... That's why I named it so in the scope name ;) !
  • A very difficult case is maybe more interesting than an easy one, isn't it ? ;)--Jebulon (talk) 01:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment - 1. Under the word "Location" I put not so elementary meaning. Almost everybody on this planet knows where is the Florence Cathedral even without geocode. The clock is a fragment of the whole architectural work of art. It is an inseparable piece of the interior ensemble. It has a specific place in the architectural composition. This is important and this I meant about location. I uploaded two photos showing the best representation of the subject, imo. Unfortunately, the technical quality is not so good. (here and here). These photos give us idea of Location, Scale and Decoration details. 2. As for the scope name, for me it is definitely Florence Cathedral Clock. --MrPanyGoff 07:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment. I'm sorry I disagree with almost all the comment just above.--Jebulon (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support This image is of good quality and shows better the environment. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scores: 
1. Clock 24 hours Florence Cathedral.jpg: +1
2. Paolo uccello, orologio di smf.jpg: +0
=>
File:Clock 24 hours Florence Cathedral.jpg: Promoted.
File:Paolo uccello, orologio di smf.jpg: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 00:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2011-06-17 22:08 (UTC)
Scope:
The 24 hours clock of the Florence Cathedral
Reason:
    1. Best competitor
    2. The colors looks unnatural to me
    3. Lower size
    4. Not made by a wikipedian... -- Jebulon (talk)

Scores: 

1. Clock 24 hours Florence Cathedral.jpg: +1
2. Paolo uccello, orologio di smf.jpg: +0
=>
File:Clock 24 hours Florence Cathedral.jpg: Promoted.
File:Paolo uccello, orologio di smf.jpg: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 00:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Vernazza

[edit]
   

View opposition
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-06-20 12:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Vernazza

Scores: 

1. Vernazza view 2.jpg: +0
2. Spezia vernazza.jpg: +0 
3. Vernazza from above.JPG: +2 
=>
File:Vernazza view 2.jpg: Declined.
File:Spezia vernazza.jpg: Declined.
File:Vernazza from above.JPG: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 00:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-06-20 12:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Vernazza

Scores: 

1. Vernazza view 2.jpg: +0
2. Spezia vernazza.jpg: +0 
3. Vernazza from above.JPG: +2 
=>
File:Vernazza view 2.jpg: Declined.
File:Spezia vernazza.jpg: Declined.
File:Vernazza from above.JPG: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 00:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-06-20 12:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Vernazza

 Support best resolution --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Agree.--Jebulon (talk) 07:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

Scores: 
1. Vernazza view 2.jpg: +0
2. Spezia vernazza.jpg: +0 
3. Vernazza from above.JPG: +2 
=>
File:Vernazza view 2.jpg: Declined.
File:Spezia vernazza.jpg: Declined.
File:Vernazza from above.JPG: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 00:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Astyanax mexicanus

[edit]
   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Grand-Duc (talk) on 2011-06-19 12:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Astyanax mexicanus
Reason:
I guess that this is a good depiction of this fish species in its blind form. -- Grand-Duc (talk)

* Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

Scores: 
1. Astyanax mexikanus blind trio.jpg:  0
2. Astyanax mexikanus blind.jpg:  0
3. Astyanax mexicanus 01.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Astyanax mexikanus blind trio.jpg: Declined.
File:Astyanax mexikanus blind.jpg: Declined.
File:Astyanax mexicanus 01.jpg: Promoted.
--George Chernilevsky talk 09:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
Grand-Duc (talk) on 2011-06-19 12:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Astyanax mexicanus
Reason:
I guess that this is a good depiction of this fish species in its blind form. -- Grand-Duc (talk)

Scores: 

1. Astyanax mexikanus blind trio.jpg:  0
2. Astyanax mexikanus blind.jpg:  0
3. Astyanax mexicanus 01.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Astyanax mexikanus blind trio.jpg: Declined.
File:Astyanax mexikanus blind.jpg: Declined.
File:Astyanax mexicanus 01.jpg: Promoted.
--George Chernilevsky talk 09:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2011-05-22 06:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Astyanax mexicanus (Mexican Tetra), Blind cave form

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:09, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 07:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--- New review 

Scores: 
1. Astyanax mexikanus blind trio.jpg:  0
2. Astyanax mexikanus blind.jpg:  0
3. Astyanax mexicanus 01.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Astyanax mexikanus blind trio.jpg: Declined.
File:Astyanax mexikanus blind.jpg: Declined.
File:Astyanax mexicanus 01.jpg: Promoted.
--George Chernilevsky talk 09:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Closed_most_valued_reviews/2011/06&oldid=148646632"