Commons:Closed most valued reviews/2010/07

Closed most valued reviews/2010/07

Pusher boat

View opposition Nominated by: Jebulon (talk) on 2010-06-21 22:26 (UTC) Scope: Pusher boats Reason: A "pusher" at work on the Seine river in Paris. There is no specific category, but one can find a lot of other pictures on this theme in "Commons". I think this one could be promoted as the most valuable, because of details and not so bad quality. -- Jebulon (talk) Categories don't distinguish pushing and pulling. :( --Ikar.us (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Sorry, but I find the background very distracting. Have found two examples where the outline is better visible. --Ikar.us (talk) 08:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)  Question We are examinating "tugboats" which push, is that? Also called "towboats", or am I wrong? --Myrabella (talk) 21:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC) Oh, yes! en:tugboat includes both, so I didn't search for another term. --Ikar.us (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC) So I'd suggest to change the scope to "Towboat" (in the singular), the right term as it seems, matching the link and the title of the en:WP article. However an English-native speaker may help: this tug is pushing, could it be called a "towboat"? --Myrabella (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC) The article says towboat is American, outside they're called pushers. I suggest to keep the unambiguous and easy-to-understand descriptive term. --Ikar.us (talk) 23:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC) OK, that will be clearer (actually I had already asked the question). --Myrabella (talk) 23:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)  Question Sorry to be irksome, but shouldn't we say "Pusher boat" rather than "Pusher ships"? The first term seems much more in use than the second one ([1] vs [2]). I don't know well the differences between "boat", "ship" and "vessel" (neither in French between "bateau", "navire" et "vaisseau"), but a ship is commonly a rather big boat, isn't it? And a tug or towboat is usually smaller than the ship it pulls/pushes. As instance, the tiny one in File:Argenteuil - Seine pousseur.jpg can be said a boat but not a ship. --Myrabella (talk) 08:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC) I think vessel is the generic term. To be a ship and not a boat, a vessel has or had to, depending on context: have three or more yard-rigged masts be equipped to accomodate its crew over an extended period of time, thus operate independent of harbours be heavier than 500 register tons have the military rank of a battalion be able to carry other vessels be able to transport any payload exept their crew and equipment … None of these criteria is useful for pushers, only the 2. could be applied, IMO. --Ikar.us (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC) So => "Pusher boat"? --Myrabella (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Yes, but mainly because it's more in use. Not because of any of the criteria. There are pushers which push a convoy all the way along a long river and house their crew, while the pullers which maneuver ocean ships within a harbour are much bigger, but exchange their crew after each work shift. --Ikar.us (talk) 09:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)  CommentIMO, prefixes "tug" or "tow" are not good here, because they don't distinguish between push and pull. What I show, and what I submit to your judgement "pushes". Then, it is a "pusher" (term in use). Furthermore, nobody in French can say that "my" boat (or ship) is a "remorqueur". I think that we all agree. Now, is it a "pusher vessel", a "pusher boat" or a "pusher ship" ? The category "pusher ship" exists in "Commons", but shows pushers and pullers... What shall we do ? If boat=bateau and ship=navire, then it's a boat, to me. Because it's more natural to me to say "bateau-pousseur" than "navire-pousseur", as I say "bateau-lavoir" and "navire-hopital"... As you like it ! Maybe an English native speaking reviewer could help ? Britts are specialists of naval things, aren't they ? "Rule Britannia", as said Surcouf... --Jebulon (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Brits aren't specialists in inland navigation. The biggest pusher boats seem to be in the USA, on the Mississippi river. --Ikar.us (talk) 15:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC) It was a (bad) joke...--Jebulon (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Sorry to insist: the more I see this one, the more I find it more illustrative than others. One can see that it "pushes" something (a barge), but what it "pushes" is nor distracting neither disturbing in the scope. In other words : it's a pushing "pusher", but only a "pusher".--Jebulon (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC) I've proposed a new candidate, with a less distracting background, hoping it's a true pusher! --Myrabella (talk) 05:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC) MVR Scores: 1. pousseur intraitable.jpg: 0 <-- 2. Schubverband Havel.jpg: 0 3. Schubboot Victor Millet,F.JPG: -1 4. Duwboot Kraaijenberg in sluis Maas-Waalkanaal, heumen (Gld, NL).JPG: 0 5. ENI 02006792 JAMAICA (03).JPG: -1 6. RT tug pusher4.jpg: +2 => File:pousseur intraitable.jpg: Declined. <-- File:Schubverband Havel.jpg: Declined. File:Schubboot Victor Millet,F.JPG: Declined. File:Duwboot Kraaijenberg in sluis Maas-Waalkanaal, heumen (Gld, NL).JPG: Declined. File:ENI 02006792 JAMAICA (03).JPG: Declined. File:RT tug pusher4.jpg: Promoted. --Myrabella (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Ikar.us (talk) on 2010-06-22 07:50 (UTC) Scope: Pusher boats Reason: Top side of boat is visible. Pusher is in the foreground, nevertheless we see what it pushes. -- Ikar.us (talk)  Oppose (may I, as nominator of a competitor ?) IMO, out of scope. It's a convoy, not a pusher ship. Furthermore, the background is ugly and much more disturbing. (roadsigns, "tag" on the embankment, lock)...--Jebulon (talk) 10:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC) I remove my oppose vote, because I wont to be considered as not a gentleman by Myrabella, but my opinion stays. Moral and factual (not accountant) opposition.--Jebulon (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC) MVR Scores: 1. pousseur intraitable.jpg: 0 2. Schubverband Havel.jpg: 0 <-- 3. Schubboot Victor Millet,F.JPG: -1 4. Duwboot Kraaijenberg in sluis Maas-Waalkanaal, heumen (Gld, NL).JPG: 0 5. ENI 02006792 JAMAICA (03).JPG: -1 6. RT tug pusher4.jpg: +2 => File:pousseur intraitable.jpg: Declined. File:Schubverband Havel.jpg: Declined. <-- File:Schubboot Victor Millet,F.JPG: Declined. File:Duwboot Kraaijenberg in sluis Maas-Waalkanaal, heumen (Gld, NL).JPG: Declined. File:ENI 02006792 JAMAICA (03).JPG: Declined. File:RT tug pusher4.jpg: Promoted. --Myrabella (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View opposition Nominated by: Ikar.us (talk) on 2010-06-22 07:52 (UTC) Scope: Pusher boats Reason: Better background. (i.e. unremarkable - therefore I claim exception from geocoding, the movable ship is the only important object in the image) -- Ikar.us (talk) This is an example for a Rhine ship, which is not limited in height, like those on Seine or Havel. --Ikar.us (talk) 08:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC) * Oppose (may I, as nominator of a competitor ?) Sorry, I disagree with your claim exception from geocoding, furthermore, I don't understand your argument about height limitation to make this one more representative...--Jebulon (talk) 10:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC) I think you may. (Voting rules are anyway inconsistent.) This isn't an argument, just a remark that there are many different kinds of barges. (I would like scopes for all of them.) (There's no description field in Template:VIC.) --Ikar.us (talk) 10:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)  Info VI voting rules aren't so inconsistent: "Any registered user can review the valued image candidates [...]. Comments are welcome from everyone, but neither the nominator nor the original image author may vote (that does not exclude voting from users who have edited the image with a view to improving it)." => the first nominator can vote, if he isn't the author of the competing images. However, some consider as more "fair play" or sportive not to, when their first nominated image has been put in a MVR. --Myrabella (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)  Oppose as 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) - Visit my new user-page! 16:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC) I remove my oppose, because I wont to be considered as not "fair play" or not sportive to Myrabella's eyes :) ! But I don't remove my comment.--Jebulon (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC) MVR Scores: 1. pousseur intraitable.jpg: 0 2. Schubverband Havel.jpg: 0 3. Schubboot Victor Millet,F.JPG: -1 <-- 4. Duwboot Kraaijenberg in sluis Maas-Waalkanaal, heumen (Gld, NL).JPG: 0 5. ENI 02006792 JAMAICA (03).JPG: -1 6. RT tug pusher4.jpg: +2 => File:pousseur intraitable.jpg: Declined. File:Schubverband Havel.jpg: Declined. File:Schubboot Victor Millet,F.JPG: Declined. <-- File:Duwboot Kraaijenberg in sluis Maas-Waalkanaal, heumen (Gld, NL).JPG: Declined. File:ENI 02006792 JAMAICA (03).JPG: Declined. File:RT tug pusher4.jpg: Promoted. --Myrabella (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Stunteltje (talk) on 2010-06-23 22:07 (UTC) Scope: Pusher boats  Info Fixing a nomination made by Stunteltje. --Myrabella (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)  Comment I'm sorry, it's a convoy. Out of scope IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC) MVR Scores: 1. pousseur intraitable.jpg: 0 2. Schubverband Havel.jpg: 0 3. Schubboot Victor Millet,F.JPG: -1 4. Duwboot Kraaijenberg in sluis Maas-Waalkanaal, heumen (Gld, NL).JPG: 0 <-- 5. ENI 02006792 JAMAICA (03).JPG: -1 6. RT tug pusher4.jpg: +2 => File:pousseur intraitable.jpg: Declined. File:Schubverband Havel.jpg: Declined. File:Schubboot Victor Millet,F.JPG: Declined. File:Duwboot Kraaijenberg in sluis Maas-Waalkanaal, heumen (Gld, NL).JPG: Declined. <-- File:ENI 02006792 JAMAICA (03).JPG: Declined. File:RT tug pusher4.jpg: Promoted. --Myrabella (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View opposition Nominated by: Stunteltje (talk) on 2010-06-23 22:11 (UTC) Scope: Pusher ship  Info Fixing a nomination made by Stunteltje. --Myrabella (talk) 22:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)  Support this, because datails of the ship are visible. Am going to nominate a separate Schubverband scope, to illustrate what a pusher pushes. --Ikar.us (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)  Comment 1/ I Agree that this image shows [a VI for this scope should show] well the characteristical square bow. 2/ May I suggest to slightly reword the scope in "pusher boat", because this term is more widely in use than "pusher ship" (([3] vs [4])? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrabella (talk • contribs) 2010-06-24T15:04:26 (UTC)  Comment I'm sorry to disagree with Myrabella. It is not a "pusher", but a "puller" transformed in "pusher". The metallic transformation visible here is not characteristic, because it was added, and the bow is not squared.--Jebulon (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Oh yes, should have looked better.  Oppose, not typical. But I like the idea of a front view of an idle pusher for this scope. --Ikar.us (talk) 20:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC) Acknowledged. --Myrabella (talk) 08:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC) MVR Scores: 1. pousseur intraitable.jpg: 0 2. Schubverband Havel.jpg: 0 3. Schubboot Victor Millet,F.JPG: -1 4. Duwboot Kraaijenberg in sluis Maas-Waalkanaal, heumen (Gld, NL).JPG: 0 5. ENI 02006792 JAMAICA (03).JPG: -1 <-- 6. RT tug pusher4.jpg: +2 => File:pousseur intraitable.jpg: Declined. File:Schubverband Havel.jpg: Declined. File:Schubboot Victor Millet,F.JPG: Declined. File:Duwboot Kraaijenberg in sluis Maas-Waalkanaal, heumen (Gld, NL).JPG: Declined. File:ENI 02006792 JAMAICA (03).JPG: Declined. <-- File:RT tug pusher4.jpg: Promoted. --Myrabella (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Myrabella (talk) on 2010-06-27 05:07 (UTC) Scope: Pusher boat Hoping that it is a true pusher (I saw the model on that page, unless I'm wrong), I propose this image where the background is less distracting. Other views of the same boat available in the "Other versions" gallery on the file page. One regret : better if it goes from left to right... . Well, the best in scope (I'm afraid...) As nominator of a competitor, may I vote ? If yes, I  Support because I have to, to be honest... Myrabella, t'es trop forte, d'ailleurs je te déteste...--Jebulon (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC) It's the game, and you've played it with a perfect sportive spirit. --Myrabella (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)  Support Per Jebulon. Best in scope, all criteria met. --George Chernilevsky talk 06:19, 1 July 2010 (UTC) MVR Scores: 1. pousseur intraitable.jpg: 0 2. Schubverband Havel.jpg: 0 3. Schubboot Victor Millet,F.JPG: -1 4. Duwboot Kraaijenberg in sluis Maas-Waalkanaal, heumen (Gld, NL).JPG: 0 5. ENI 02006792 JAMAICA (03).JPG: -1 6. RT tug pusher4.jpg: +2 <-- => File:pousseur intraitable.jpg: Declined. File:Schubverband Havel.jpg: Declined. File:Schubboot Victor Millet,F.JPG: Declined. File:Duwboot Kraaijenberg in sluis Maas-Waalkanaal, heumen (Gld, NL).JPG: Declined. File:ENI 02006792 JAMAICA (03).JPG: Declined. File:RT tug pusher4.jpg: Promoted. <-- --Myrabella (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, Moscow (exterior)

View opposition Nominated by: Ikar.us (talk) on 2010-06-28 11:14 (UTC) Scope: Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, Moscow (exterior) Used in: 14 Wikipedias, for the church and for more general topics Reason: Out of many similar images, on this one the church is least obstacled by lanterns, and the person near the stairs gives a better sense of scale. -- Ikar.us (talk)  Info The church was blasted in 1931 and rebuilt in the years 1995 to 2000. --Ikar.us (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC) MVR 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) 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  Support I agree with Berthold --Pudelek (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)  Support better perspective --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)  Support better light. --Jebulon (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC) 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) 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) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Canon EF 75-300mm lens

View promotion Nominated by: Eusebius (talk) on 2010-06-30 18:09 (UTC) Scope: Canon EF 75-300mm lens  Support The background is too dark, but nonetheless it's the best image because of perspective and detail. -- H005 21:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)  Support I agree with H005 -- George Chernilevsky talk 07:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Scores: 1. Canon EF 75-300 f-4-5.6 III.jpg: +2 <-- 2. Canon EOS 450D with Canon EF 75-300mm F4-5.6 III lens-flickr - by - AaronE™.jpg: 0 3. Canon EF 75-300mm F4-5.6 II-flickr - by - MiNe (sfmine79).jpg: 0 => File:Canon EF 75-300 f-4-5.6 III.jpg: Promoted. <-- File:Canon EOS 450D with Canon EF 75-300mm F4-5.6 III lens-flickr - by - AaronE™.jpg: Declined. File:Canon EF 75-300mm F4-5.6 II-flickr - by - MiNe (sfmine79).jpg: Declined. --Ikar.us (talk) 15:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Eusebius (talk) on 2010-06-30 18:09 (UTC) Scope: Canon EF 75-300mm lens Scores: 1. Canon EF 75-300 f-4-5.6 III.jpg: +2 2. Canon EOS 450D with Canon EF 75-300mm F4-5.6 III lens-flickr - by - AaronE™.jpg: 0 <-- 3. Canon EF 75-300mm F4-5.6 II-flickr - by - MiNe (sfmine79).jpg: 0 => File:Canon EF 75-300 f-4-5.6 III.jpg: Promoted. File:Canon EOS 450D with Canon EF 75-300mm F4-5.6 III lens-flickr - by - AaronE™.jpg: Declined. <-- File:Canon EF 75-300mm F4-5.6 II-flickr - by - MiNe (sfmine79).jpg: Declined. --Ikar.us (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View opposition Nominated by: Eusebius (talk) on 2010-06-30 18:09 (UTC) Scope: Canon EF 75-300mm lens Scores: 1. Canon EF 75-300 f-4-5.6 III.jpg: +2 2. Canon EOS 450D with Canon EF 75-300mm F4-5.6 III lens-flickr - by - AaronE™.jpg: 0 3. Canon EF 75-300mm F4-5.6 II-flickr - by - MiNe (sfmine79).jpg: 0 <-- => File:Canon EF 75-300 f-4-5.6 III.jpg: Promoted. File:Canon EOS 450D with Canon EF 75-300mm F4-5.6 III lens-flickr - by - AaronE™.jpg: Declined. File:Canon EF 75-300mm F4-5.6 II-flickr - by - MiNe (sfmine79).jpg: Declined. <-- --Ikar.us (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Astronomic conjunction

View Nominated by: Cody escadron delta (talk) on 2010-06-30 06:31 (UTC) Scope: Astronomic conjunction Reason: Best in scope. -- Cody escadron delta (talk)  Oppose as 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". When geocoded please also change the scope to something like Astronomical conjunction or Conjunction (Astronomy) as not to confuse this item with astrological or logical conjunction which can also have illustrations. Additionally, in the description it should be made clear which of the two are Venus an Mercury (some reusers could be confused here) maybe with an image note. — Lycaon (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)  Comment The picture as such is good and very appropriate and I would support if above issues can be fixed. Lycaon (talk) 07:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC) About geotag: rough location of the Very Large Telescope at the Paranal Observatory on Cerro Paranal added. The source page says: "To the bottom left, [...] is one of the four 1.8-metre Auxiliary Telescopes (ATs) deployed at Paranal". The ATs are mobile telescopes which can be placed on different positions around the four big telescopes, but in a limited area. We can see a peak in the background and I guess that the position of the Moon and planets can help to precise the camera location. --Myrabella (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC) * Oppose Sorry, I don't find the picture so good. As far as I know, Venus appears perceptibly red. This should be visible in a valuable photo. --Ikar.us (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC) I think you are confusing with Mars. Venus is bright white. Lycaon (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Oh yes. I should go to sleep. --Ikar.us (talk) 10:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Albeit once bitten, I try again to pretend astronomical knowledge: The date in the image description is was wrong. It claimed to be from last week. The source says "one morning in March 2008".  Done according to en:Conjunction (astronomy and astrology)#2008 The conjunction is of only two planets and not very close. There are more impressive examples here, although without ground reference. --Ikar.us (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC) March 23 is not correct, as March 21 was full moon; this must have been about two weeks earlier, compare this page. Playing with YourSky gives that this was on March 6. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, March 5 or 6, see [5] (New York) and [6] p.9 (New Zealand) --Myrabella (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)  Oppose This doesn't really look like a conjunction. Venus and Mercury are fairly far away. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Astronomers talk about conjunction whenever one solar system object "overtakes" another on their ways along the ecliptic. Because of their inclination, they usually are several degrees apart from each other. An outstanding conjunction happens when either two objects have a conjunction near the intersection of their paths, appearing specially near to each other, or when more than two objects have a joint conjunction. In this sense the conjunction of Moon, Mercury and Venus on this image is somewhat special. --Ikar.us (talk) 09:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC) But - where is the ecliptic in the image? Is it vertical? Then the moon is just approaching, and there's no conjunction yet. --Ikar.us (talk) 13:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)  Info To know if the image represents a conjunction or not, I've asked Luc Viatour; his answer on my talkpage (in French). --Myrabella (talk) 14:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC) As I understand, he says it's a conjunction of the twoplanets and a nice monn crescant. And he emphasises that conjunctions aren't rare, and that photographers must place them in a context. And that it's very well realised here. --Ikar.us (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC) Terrestrial context is good for a postcard photo. (That's what this photo was intended, since it's published by ESO, but without astronomical data.) Important is always some scale, but the moon is a perfect scale on sky. His diameter is half a degree. I'm going to nominate one of the photos of the triple threesome conjunction on 2008-12-01. --Ikar.us (talk) 15:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC) en:Triple conjunction means three subsequent conjunctions of the same two objects due to retrograd movement. Changed word. --Ikar.us (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)  Support All criteria met. For me the best of the bunch. Lycaon (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2010 (UTC)  Support For me too. --Myrabella (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC) I think now I've really understood what we see. We're near the equator, looking East, the ecliptic is vertical. It's the day of Mercury's maximum elongation. Probably worth a VI. (Most of the time, Mercury is too near to the sun to be seen.) But it's not a conjunction. In this view from Equator, planets in conjunction would be side-by-side, left-right. These two had even two conjunctions, one on 2008-02-27, when Mercury passed Venus on his way away from the sun, and one on 2008-03-24, when he had turned and travelled back. Both times only 1° distance to the right rsp. left. Here we are in the mid of this period. No conjunction.  Oppose, out of scope. --Ikar.us (talk) 17:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC) The ESO source page says: "the planets Mercury and Venus were in alignment above the Moon, in a celestial event known as a conjunction." The photographer is credited, I feel like asking him the question (or to ESO information service as well). --Myrabella (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC) I'm looking forward to their answer. If I'm right, I suggest a scope like Mercury on Earth's sky. --Ikar.us (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Question sent. Maybe the photographer will read our discussion (I gave him the link). --Myrabella (talk) 15:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC) The photographer has answered. He tells me that "quite often the answer depends on whom you ask", and he recommends to read that page. --Myrabella (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Scores: 1. Mercury, Venus and the Moon Align.jpg: 0 <-- 2. 08.12.01 01 Conjuction of the Moon, Venus & Jupiter.JPG: 0 3. Moon and Venus conjunctions.jpg: 0 3. Moon-venus-jupiter-2.jpg: 0 => File:Mercury, Venus and the Moon Align.jpg: Undecided. <-- File:08.12.01 01 Conjuction of the Moon, Venus & Jupiter.JPG: Undecided. File:Moon and Venus conjunctions.jpg: Undecided. File:Moon-venus-jupiter-2.jpg: Undecided. --Ikar.us (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View Nominated by: Ikar.us (talk) on 2010-07-02 00:20 (UTC) Scope: Astronomic conjunction Reason: Three objects very near together. Both planets were very bright, the constellation must have been eye-catching. -- Ikar.us (talk)  Oppose as 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 4 (is not fully described on the image page). 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. --Myrabella (talk) 14:28, 2 July 2010 (UTC)  Done. And added to reason. --Ikar.us (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2010 (UTC)  Comment Better now. Personally I'd prefer an image with a ground reference for the scope, but another thing bothers me in that image: the weak information on author (not tagged "own work" e.g.) and license; it hasn't a Creative Commons license or other of the recommended licenses on Commons, but an unusual {{Attribution}}. And the date and hour of the original upload log doesn't match very well with the EXIF date and time (an issue of time reference I guess). --Myrabella (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Scores: 1. Mercury, Venus and the Moon Align.jpg: 0 2. 08.12.01 01 Conjuction of the Moon, Venus & Jupiter.JPG: 0 <-- 3. Moon and Venus conjunctions.jpg: 0 3. Moon-venus-jupiter-2.jpg: 0 => File:Mercury, Venus and the Moon Align.jpg: Undecided. File:08.12.01 01 Conjuction of the Moon, Venus & Jupiter.JPG: Undecided. <-- File:Moon and Venus conjunctions.jpg: Undecided. File:Moon-venus-jupiter-2.jpg: Undecided. --Ikar.us (talk) 12:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View Nominated by: Ikar.us (talk) on 2010-07-02 00:25 (UTC) Scope: Astronomic conjunction Reason: An educational set of three consecutive days, showing the Moon overtaking Venus. -- Ikar.us (talk)  Oppose as 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myrabella (talk • contribs) 2010-07-02T09:01:27 (UTC)  Done Got position from photographer. --Ikar.us (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Aknowledged. As it is a set of three consecutive days, it could be worth to precise the date (and hour) of the different takes. I still prefer File:Mercury, Venus and the Moon Align.jpg. --Myrabella (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC) Scores: 1. Mercury, Venus and the Moon Align.jpg: 0 2. 08.12.01 01 Conjuction of the Moon, Venus & Jupiter.JPG: 0 3. Moon and Venus conjunctions.jpg: 0 <-- 3. Moon-venus-jupiter-2.jpg: 0 => File:Mercury, Venus and the Moon Align.jpg: Undecided. File:08.12.01 01 Conjuction of the Moon, Venus & Jupiter.JPG: Undecided. File:Moon and Venus conjunctions.jpg: Undecided. <-- File:Moon-venus-jupiter-2.jpg: Undecided. --Ikar.us (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View Nominated by: Ikar.us (talk) on 2010-07-02 00:43 (UTC) Scope: Astronomic conjunction Reason: A scene with two bright planets in conjunction, Moon and ground reference. -- Ikar.us (talk)  Question Could you explain why it would be more a conjunction than File:Mercury, Venus and the Moon Align.jpg? --Myrabella (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC) In this view, from 50° North towards South-West, the ecliptic runs oblique through the image. From Sun (below horizon, findable by crescent) through Moon towards the planets. The line between both planets is orthogonal to the ecliptic. This is a conjunction. (Perhaps this cinfused the ESO commentator - in our latidudes, planets above each other are indeed a sign of conjunction.) --Ikar.us (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Seen in the en:WP article : "in the particular case of two planets, [a conjunction] means that they merely have the same right ascension (and hence the same hour angle). This is called conjunction in right ascension. However, there is also the term conjunction in ecliptical longitude. At such conjunction both objects have the same ecliptical longitude. Conjunction in right ascension and conjunction in ecliptical longitude do not normally take place at the same time, but in most cases nearly at the same time." (Right ascension is the celestial equivalent of terrestrial longitude.) Maybe are you focalising on only one kind of conjunction? --Myrabella (talk) 22:44, 3 July 2010 (UTC) Let's think geometrically: At conjunction, the line between the two planets is orthogonal to the reference line (sky equator or ecliptic). The reference lines enclose an angle of 23°. That's the maximum difference in directions of the planet connection line for the two kinds of conjunction. If they happen near the vernal or autumnal point, and the difference of speed of the planets is small, the point of time and and the position will significantly differ between both types of conjunction, but the relative position of the planets, and the visual appearance of the side-by-side relation will still be very similar, with only 23° difference, being compared to the behind-relation, which is at least 67° different. --Ikar.us (talk) 12:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC) Scores: 1. Mercury, Venus and the Moon Align.jpg: 0 2. 08.12.01 01 Conjuction of the Moon, Venus & Jupiter.JPG: 0 3. Moon and Venus conjunctions.jpg: 0 3. Moon-venus-jupiter-2.jpg: 0 <-- => File:Mercury, Venus and the Moon Align.jpg: Undecided. File:08.12.01 01 Conjuction of the Moon, Venus & Jupiter.JPG: Undecided. File:Moon and Venus conjunctions.jpg: Undecided. File:Moon-venus-jupiter-2.jpg: Undecided. <-- --Ikar.us (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Grand Menhir in Locmariaquer, France

View opposition Nominated by: Myrabella (talk) on 2010-07-07 19:57 (UTC) Scope: Grand Menhir in Locmariaquer, France Reason: The Grand Menhir in Locmariaquer (Brittany, France), classified Monument Historique, is difficult to take because of its size (moreover, it is now forbidden to walk on the grass...). I nominate in a MVR the four photographs available in Commons showing the four pieces of that huge broken menhir. This one gives an idea of its length and of the relative position of the 4 pieces. -- Myrabella (talk)  Support per reason.--Ikar.us (talk) 22:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Scores: 1. Grand Menhir Er Grah Locmariaquer.jpg: +1 <-- 2. Gran menhir (6).jpg: +0 3. Locmariaquer 2008 PD 21.JPG: -1 4. Locmariaquer 2008 PD 22.JPG: +1 5. Broken menhir edit.jpg: +2 => File:Grand Menhir Er Grah Locmariaquer.jpg: Declined. <-- File:Gran menhir (6).jpg: Declined. File:Locmariaquer 2008 PD 21.JPG: Declined. File:Locmariaquer 2008 PD 22.JPG: Declined. File:Broken menhir edit.jpg: Promoted. --Ikar.us (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Myrabella (talk) on 2010-07-07 19:57 (UTC) Scope: Grand Menhir in Locmariaquer, France  Question Were the stones moved in the time between this and the first photo? It's hardly recognizable as the same scene. --Ikar.us (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC) No, they weren't. You can see an aerial view of the site on this page. --Myrabella (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Scores: 1. Grand Menhir Er Grah Locmariaquer.jpg: +1 2. Gran menhir (6).jpg: +0 <-- 3. Locmariaquer 2008 PD 21.JPG: -1 4. Locmariaquer 2008 PD 22.JPG: +1 5. Broken menhir edit.jpg: +2 => File:Grand Menhir Er Grah Locmariaquer.jpg: Declined. File:Gran menhir (6).jpg: Declined. <-- File:Locmariaquer 2008 PD 21.JPG: Declined. File:Locmariaquer 2008 PD 22.JPG: Declined. File:Broken menhir edit.jpg: Promoted. --Ikar.us (talk) 21:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View opposition Nominated by: Myrabella (talk) on 2010-07-07 19:57 (UTC) Scope: Grand Menhir in Locmariaquer, France  Oppose The houses appear bigger than the stones. --Ikar.us (talk) 20:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Scores: 1. Grand Menhir Er Grah Locmariaquer.jpg: +1 2. Gran menhir (6).jpg: +0 3. Locmariaquer 2008 PD 21.JPG: -1 <-- 4. Locmariaquer 2008 PD 22.JPG: +1 5. Broken menhir edit.jpg: +2 => File:Grand Menhir Er Grah Locmariaquer.jpg: Declined. File:Gran menhir (6).jpg: Declined. File:Locmariaquer 2008 PD 21.JPG: Declined. <-- File:Locmariaquer 2008 PD 22.JPG: Declined. File:Broken menhir edit.jpg: Promoted. --Ikar.us (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Myrabella (talk) on 2010-07-07 19:57 (UTC) Scope: Grand Menhir in Locmariaquer, France  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)  Comment It's a pity that the first piece of the menhir is cropped in this image. I've nominated a new candidate. --Myrabella (talk) 17:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Scores: 1. Grand Menhir Er Grah Locmariaquer.jpg: +1 2. Gran menhir (6).jpg: +0 3. Locmariaquer 2008 PD 21.JPG: -1 4. Locmariaquer 2008 PD 22.JPG: +1 <-- 5. Broken menhir edit.jpg: +2 => File:Grand Menhir Er Grah Locmariaquer.jpg: Declined. File:Gran menhir (6).jpg: Declined. File:Locmariaquer 2008 PD 21.JPG: Declined. File:Locmariaquer 2008 PD 22.JPG: Declined. <-- File:Broken menhir edit.jpg: Promoted. --Ikar.us (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View promotion Nominated by: Myrabella (talk) on 2010-07-11 17:21 (UTC) Scope: Grand Menhir in Locmariaquer, France Reason: An edited version of a firstly unnoticed image, here cropped for a better view of the 4 pieces of the Broken Menhir. -- Myrabella (talk)  Support Not the best quality, but the most illustrative IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 13:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)  Support this now. --Ikar.us (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC) Scores: 1. Grand Menhir Er Grah Locmariaquer.jpg: +1 2. Gran menhir (6).jpg: +0 3. Locmariaquer 2008 PD 21.JPG: -1 4. Locmariaquer 2008 PD 22.JPG: +1 5. Broken menhir edit.jpg: +2 <-- => File:Grand Menhir Er Grah Locmariaquer.jpg: Declined. File:Gran menhir (6).jpg: Declined. File:Locmariaquer 2008 PD 21.JPG: Declined. File:Locmariaquer 2008 PD 22.JPG: Declined. File:Broken menhir edit.jpg: Promoted. <-- --Ikar.us (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Peace Arch Park

View opposition Nominated by: The High Fin Sperm Whale on 2010-07-07 04:00 (UTC) Scope: Peace Arch Park  Oppose Please read scope guidelines before nominating. As often, a daylight picture would be much more appropriate to illustrate this scope. Fails criterion 3 (illustrates well). Lycaon (talk) 04:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC) I am quite familiar with the guidelines, but why is a daytime picture so much better? Is it to show that objects disappear at night? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 16:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC) The night picture might be a choice for the monument (if it wasn't cropped so tight on the right, and the flags cropped and dark). But the scope is about the park. --Ikar.us (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)  Oppose Per Lycaon. --Myrabella (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Scores: 1. Peace Arch.JPG: -2 <-- 2. Peacearch-usside.jpg: 0 3. Peace-Arch-3614 edit.jpg: +1 => File:Peace Arch.JPG: Declined. <-- File:Peacearch-usside.jpg: Declined. File:Peace-Arch-3614 edit.jpg: Promoted. --Ikar.us (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Ikar.us (talk) on 2010-07-07 22:53 (UTC) Scope: Peace Arch Park Reason: Shows the arch, the custom station and elements of the park. -- Ikar.us (talk)  Support (the prespective to be corrected) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)  Question Are the edges of the arch vertical? --Ikar.us (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2010 (UTC)  Comment For VI this is not a problem. But there is much distortion of perspective. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:09, 12 July 2010 (UTC) File:Peace-Arch-3614.jpg is a view from above, but it looks narrower at the top. It seems to be really tapered. --Ikar.us (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)  Oppose I don't know this place. To me, it shows an arch, not a park enough. The scope is bad IMO. I suggest "The arch of the peace arch park". (Furthermore, to be clear for non northern-american people, maybe could you correct "costum" in "custom" )--Jebulon (talk) 09:58, 12 July 2010 (UTC) I didn't know it before. VI is very educative. We see lots of lawn, people walking, a florid flag and the sign with the name of the park (not readable, but visible). Only a border marker is missing.  Done orthography. --Ikar.us (talk) 10:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC) PS. For the arch only, I'd prefer File:Peacearchuscanadaborder.JPG, where the inside is better visible. --Ikar.us (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2010 (UTC)  Comment Considering Jebulon's remarks, I've nominated a new candidate. --Myrabella (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Scores: 1. Peace Arch.JPG: -2 2. Peacearch-usside.jpg: 0 <-- 3. Peace-Arch-3614 edit.jpg: +1 => File:Peace Arch.JPG: Declined. File:Peacearch-usside.jpg: Declined. <-- File:Peace-Arch-3614 edit.jpg: Promoted. --Ikar.us (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View promotion Nominated by: Myrabella (talk) on 2010-07-15 22:56 (UTC) Scope: Peace Arch Park Reason: An edited view showing the arch, more of the park, and its situation by Semiahmoo Bay. -- Myrabella (talk)  Support Better in this scope, IMO. Thanks --Jebulon (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC) Scores: 1. Peace Arch.JPG: -2 2. Peacearch-usside.jpg: 0 3. Peace-Arch-3614 edit.jpg: +1 <-- => File:Peace Arch.JPG: Declined. File:Peacearch-usside.jpg: Declined. File:Peace-Arch-3614 edit.jpg: Promoted. <-- --Ikar.us (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)