Commons:Closed most valued reviews/2013/01

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

Closed most valued reviews 2013/01

   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Totodu74 (talk) on 2012-07-16 13:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Pachyramphus albogriseus (Black-and-white Becard)

First review:  Support Very Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Renomination for MVR

  •  Oppose
It isn't good for illustrating the bird species, as there is much of a bird of another species on it, which is distracting and it may be a problem to know which bird is meant
It isn't good for illustratig the style of the artist as the artistic work is broken by cropping it this ugly way.
-- Kersti (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Scores: 
1. Commons:Valued image candidates/Pachyramphus albogriseus 1902.jpg: ±1 (current VI within same scope) <-- 
2. Commons:Valued image candidates/Pachyramphus albogriseus Keulemans.jpg: ±2
=>
File:Pachyramphus albogriseus 1902.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <--
File:Pachyramphus albogriseus Keulemans.jpg: Declined. 

--Ikar.us (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
Kersti (talk) on 2012-11-21 18:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Pachyramphus albogriseus (Black-and-white Becard)
Reason:
the bird of the other species in the other candidate picture is distracting, therefore I changed the original, so that only one species is visible. -- Kersti (talk)

 Oppose The idea is interesting and impressive work. I do not think we can take such liberties for a graphic work. The value remains to the original. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment I don't understand your vote. If the scope would be "Drawing of John Gerrard Keulemans (1842–1912) concerning Pachyramphus albogriseus" or "historical drawing concerning Pachyramphus albogriseus" I would understand, as ist is no longer the original - But as the scope I have chosen - see headline and don't change the skope! - is "Pachyramphus albogriseus", I would prefer mine, as it illustrates the bird much better. --Kersti (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The issue is twofold: the bird and illustration. If you are right for the bird, you distorted the picture. That said without controversy because I am very appreciative of the work you have done, and I know the time you spent there. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The skope is the bird, not the illustration itself or the scientific illustration type John Gerrard Keulemans produced in his time. And I didn't "distort" the picture I made a new picture using elements of the old one.--Kersti (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support I agree with Kersti. Yann (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose That's a good try, the picture is nice seen in miniature (or thumb), but I'm really disturbed by those areas when the drawing is seen from near, and I prefer the original one. :/ Totodu74 (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Commons encourages derivative work. VI doesn't require much quality. --Ikar.us (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scores: 
1. Commons:Valued image candidates/Pachyramphus albogriseus 1902.jpg: ±1 (current VI within same scope) <-- 
2. Commons:Valued image candidates/Pachyramphus albogriseus Keulemans.jpg: ±2
=>
File:Pachyramphus albogriseus 1902.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <--
File:Pachyramphus albogriseus Keulemans.jpg: Declined. 

--Ikar.us (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Wladyslaw (talk) on 2013-01-04 19:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Aerial view of Television Tower St. Chrischona
Reason:
there is a better picture than this, should be delisted instead of the new one -- Wladyslaw (talk)
Scores: 
1. Aerial View - Fernsehturm St. Chrischona4.jpg: -1 (current VI within same scope) <-- 
2. Aerial view - Fernsehturm St. Chrischona5.jpg: +2
=>
File:Aerial View - Fernsehturm St. Chrischona4.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <--
File:Aerial view - Fernsehturm St. Chrischona5.jpg: Promoted. 
--Myrabella (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Wladyslaw (talk) on 2013-01-04 19:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Aerial view of Television Tower St. Chrischona
Reason:
best picture in scope, better than the actual VI -- Wladyslaw (talk)
Scores: 
1. Aerial View - Fernsehturm St. Chrischona4.jpg: -1 (current VI within same scope)
2. Aerial view - Fernsehturm St. Chrischona5.jpg: +2 <--
=>
File:Aerial View - Fernsehturm St. Chrischona4.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former.
File:Aerial view - Fernsehturm St. Chrischona5.jpg: Promoted.  <--
--Myrabella (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)


   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2012-11-03 07:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Nassarius reticulatus (Netted dog whelk), shell
  •  Comment Best in scope. But the best scope could be:

Nassarius reticulatus (Netted dog whelk), Shell

George Chernilevsky talk 10:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done Oups! Thank George.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 07:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
[reply]

Renomination for MVR

Scores: 
1. Nassarius reticulatus MHNT.jpg: 0 (current VI within same scope) <--
2. Nassarius reticulatus .JPG: +1 
=>
File:Nassarius reticulatus MHNT.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <--
File:Nassarius reticulatus .JPG: Promoted.
--Ikar.us (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
Commons:Valued image candidates/Nassarius reticulatus.JPG
   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Godot13 (talk) on 2013-01-10 05:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Kremlin Regiment

 Oppose Tilted but also File:Russian honour guard in Alexander Garden.jpg is better. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Kremlin Regiment-Changing of the Guard-2.jpg: -1 <--
2. Russian honour guard in Alexander Garden.jpg: +3 
=>
File:Kremlin Regiment-Changing of the Guard-2.jpg: Declined. <--
File:Russian honour guard in Alexander Garden.jpg: Promoted.
--Ikar.us (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Ikar.us (talk) on 2013-01-11 13:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Kremlin Regiment
Reason:
informal MVR suggestion -- Ikar.us (talk)
Scores: 
1. Kremlin Regiment-Changing of the Guard-2.jpg: -1
2. Russian honour guard in Alexander Garden.jpg: +3 <-- 
=>
File:Kremlin Regiment-Changing of the Guard-2.jpg: Declined.
File:Russian honour guard in Alexander Garden.jpg: Promoted. <--
--Ikar.us (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Paris 16 (talk) on 2013-01-07 11:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Église Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Mouguerre, exterior

Aberration of perspective this small image is much better: France Mouguerre Eglise.jpg --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. MOUGERRE - Église Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Mouguerre 02.jpg: 0 <--
2. France Mouguerre Eglise.jpg: +2 
=>
File:MOUGERRE - Église Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Mouguerre 02.jpg: Declined. <--
File:France Mouguerre Eglise.jpg: Promoted.
--Ikar.us (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Ikar.us (talk) on 2013-01-11 19:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Église Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Mouguerre, exterior
Reason:
informal MVR nomination -- Ikar.us (talk)
Scores: 
1. MOUGERRE - Église Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Mouguerre 02.jpg: 0
2. France Mouguerre Eglise.jpg: +2 <--
=>
File:MOUGERRE - Église Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Mouguerre 02.jpg: Declined.
File:France Mouguerre Eglise.jpg: Promoted. <--
--Ikar.us (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
   

View
Nominated by:
Berthold Werner (talk) on 2010-06-29 06:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, Moscow (exterior)
Reason:
IMHO better light and better perspective -- Berthold Werner (talk)

old review

old scores: 
1. Cathedral of Christ the Saviour 3.jpg: 0
2. Moscow - Cathedral of Christ the Saviour.jpg: +3 <--
=>
File:Cathedral of Christ the Saviour 3.jpg: Declined. 
File:Moscow - Cathedral of Christ the Saviour.jpg: Promoted. <--
--Myrabella (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MVR Scores: 
1. Moscow - Cathedral of Christ the Saviour.jpg: ±0 <--
2. Moscow July 2011-6a.jpg: ±1
=>
File:Moscow - Cathedral of Christ the Saviour.jpg: Undecided. <--
File:Moscow July 2011-6a.jpg: Undecided. 
--Ikar.us (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View
Nominated by:
Alvesgaspar (talk) on 2013-01-18 19:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, Moscow (exterior)
MVR Scores: 
1. Moscow - Cathedral of Christ the Saviour.jpg: ±0
2. Moscow July 2011-6a.jpg: ±1 <--
=>
File:Moscow - Cathedral of Christ the Saviour.jpg: Undecided.
File:Moscow July 2011-6a.jpg: Undecided. <--
--Ikar.us (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)