Support This is a better image of the bird as a whole, while its quality may not be the best, it is certainly more useful than the other image. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CommentTechnical quality is not what this is about though, while I agree that the other image has better technical quality this one is certainly more useable in an article than the other. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support this photo may not have the best quality, but it is OK. It is the poto where the bird is best seen. The background is not overly distracting, the tail is fully seen. After looking on this photo I know what the bird looks like even if it is only a thumb. --Kersti (talk) 08:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would prefer this picture as the VI for the European hedgehog as it has better image quality and also (which IMO is important) shows the hedgehog in its natural environment. -- JovanCormac (talk) 13:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO the original version looks far better than the cropped one as it has a better overall balance. Of course VI is not a beauty contest, but since cropping doesn't add any value either I think we should promote the original. -- JovanCormac17:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeas not yet eligible for VI status. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it cannot at present become a valued image since it currently fails valued image criterion 5 (should be geocoded, but is not). "All images are expected to be geocoded unless it would not be appropriate to do so". I have not reviewed the nomination against all the criteria, but if you are able to fix this issue and would like me to re-evaluate the image please leave me a message on my talk page. -- Rastaman3000 (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC) - Fixed by me. Rastaman3000 (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeas not yet eligible for VI status. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it cannot at present become a valued image since it currently fails valued image criterion 5 (should be geocoded, but is not). "All images are expected to be geocoded unless it would not be appropriate to do so". I have not reviewed the nomination against all the criteria, but if you are able to fix this issue and would like me to re-evaluate the image please leave me a message on my talk page. -- Rastaman3000 (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC) - Fixed by me Rastaman3000 (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support-- This one is better than the other images. TonyBallioni (talk)
Do you think it is the more valuable image for the scope, or do you support this one because it's the only one with a geotag? It is easy to geotag any of the three other candidates, if one of them is judged better than the others. Please take some time to perform an actual review. Or you can copy-paste geotags and remove your own oppositions, too. --Eusebius (talk) 16:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your commnent; I've Geocoded the others like you've suggested (Actually, I have no clue how comes I havn't thought of it myself). However, I still support this image, as IMHO it best illustrates the scope, and is of a high quality. Rastaman3000 (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeas not yet eligible for VI status. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it cannot at present become a valued image since it currently fails valued image criterion 5 (should be geocoded, but is not). "All images are expected to be geocoded unless it would not be appropriate to do so". I have not reviewed the nomination against all the criteria, but if you are able to fix this issue and would like me to re-evaluate the image please leave me a message on my talk page. -- Rastaman3000 (talk) 16:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC) - Fixed by me. Rastaman3000 (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A month ago, several Pedicularis images were nominated and I was moved to do the same. This one may deserve a flower subscope since it is so appealing. 15:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC) -- Walter Siegmund(talk)
I wonder if you would be kind enough to suggest which image is more valued? Please note that, "[t]he main scope should give the reader an overall impression of the plant. Usually, it will show most of the plant (flowers or fruit, stem and leaves when applicable)" (Commons:Valued_image_scope#Plants) and, "[t]he image must look good on-screen at the review size" (Commons:Valued image criteria number 3). I didn't see any criteria that referenced sizes smaller than the review size. Walter Siegmund(talk)06:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
1.jpg){kind=link}
1.jpg){kind=link}
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AValued_image_candidates%2FPedicularis_groenlandica_9839.JPG&diff=26823505&oldid=26817471){kind=link}