Commons:Closed most valued reviews/2010/10

Closed most valued reviews/2010/10

Vilnius cathedral

View opposition Nominated by: Albertus teolog (talk) on 2010-09-15 09:11 (UTC) Scope: Vilnius Cathedral (exterior)  Comment In my view, this is the best image in the scope concerning the perspective correction and one of the best concerning the light. But we should put here the most informative photo of this subject. Close to the presented here main building of the cathedral there is a high tower that is especially important in the whole composition even both buildings are inseparable as an architectural ensemble. So I consider some “Most Valued Review” so that we can compare this image with the ones that include the tower.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC) Campanile is a separate building. Not an integral part of the cathedral (in comparison to the churches in Venice and Pisa). I also have a picture of the bell tower (File:Wilno - katedra 2.JPG). Albertus teolog (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)  Oppose I agree that the tower is essential for the appearence of the building. --Ikar.us (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)  Comment I haven't made up my mind yet, and I would like to look for and compare the building dates of the cathedral and of the tower. However, could Albertus teolog add his second image to the MVR? --Myrabella (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC) I added another proposal :-) Albertus teolog (talk) 12:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC) MVR Scores: 1. Wilno - katedra.JPG: -1 <-- 2. Vilnius cathedral.jpg: 0 3. Vilnius - Cathedral 01.jpg: 0 4. Wilno - katedra 2.JPG: 2 => File:Wilno - katedra.JPG: Declined. <-- File:Vilnius cathedral.jpg: Declined. File:Vilnius - Cathedral 01.jpg: Declined. File:Wilno - katedra 2.JPG: Promoted. --Myrabella (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Ikar.us (talk) on 2010-09-20 22:48 (UTC) Scope: Vilnius Cathedral (exterior) Reason: best view of the ensemble -- Ikar.us (talk)  Question en:Vilnius_Cathedral suggests that the tower is from 1522, en:Cathedral Square, Vilnius that most of it is from 18th century. Should be clarified. --Ikar.us (talk) 11:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)  Comment A tough decision. This one seems the best but the tower here is very twisted.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)  Info The tower is leaning. --Ikar.us (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)  Comment Yes, but it seems leaning too much (compared with that image for instance) + some scaffolds hide a lantern on the cathedral. --Myrabella (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC) MVR Scores: 1. Wilno - katedra.JPG: -1 2. Vilnius cathedral.jpg: 0 <-- 3. Vilnius - Cathedral 01.jpg: 0 4. Wilno - katedra 2.JPG: 2 => File:Wilno - katedra.JPG: Declined. File:Vilnius cathedral.jpg: Declined. <-- File:Vilnius - Cathedral 01.jpg: Declined. File:Wilno - katedra 2.JPG: Promoted. --Myrabella (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View opposition Nominated by: Ikar.us (talk) on 2010-09-20 23:02 (UTC) Scope: Vilnius Cathedral (exterior) Reason: Shows better the front façade and the relation of tower and entrance. -- Ikar.us (talk)  Comment A view showing more than the sole facade of the cathedral in addition to the tower would be preferable IMO. --Myrabella (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC) MVR Scores: 1. Wilno - katedra.JPG: -1 2. Vilnius cathedral.jpg: 0 3. Vilnius - Cathedral 01.jpg: 0 <-- 4. Wilno - katedra 2.JPG: 2 => File:Wilno - katedra.JPG: Declined. File:Vilnius cathedral.jpg: Declined. File:Vilnius - Cathedral 01.jpg: Declined. <-- File:Wilno - katedra 2.JPG: Promoted. --Myrabella (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Albertus teolog (talk) on 2010-09-23 11:58 (UTC) Scope: Vilnius Cathedral (exterior)  Neutral I didn't include this because the crop on the bottom is very tight, and the light had deteriorated in the two minutes between the shots. --Ikar.us (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)  Support The tower seems here a bit less twisted and in a more faithful position than in the other similar candidate; moreover, the cathedral is free of scaffolds. The most valuable to me. --Myrabella (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)  Support If not too late, I wish to promote this one--Jebulon (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC) MVR Scores: 1. Wilno - katedra.JPG: -1 2. Vilnius cathedral.jpg: 0 3. Vilnius - Cathedral 01.jpg: 0 4. Wilno - katedra 2.JPG: 2 <-- => File:Wilno - katedra.JPG: Declined. File:Vilnius cathedral.jpg: Declined. File:Vilnius - Cathedral 01.jpg: Declined. File:Wilno - katedra 2.JPG: Promoted. <-- --Myrabella (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Church of St. Casimir in Vilnius (exterior)

View opposition Nominated by: Albertus teolog (talk) on 2010-09-22 12:36 (UTC) Scope: Church of St. Casimir in Vilnius (exterior)  Info There is also Church of St. Casimir in Naujoji Vilnia. --Ikar.us (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)  Oppose The crown isn't visible. --Ikar.us (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2010 (UTC) MVR Scores: 1. Wilno - kosciol sw. Kazimierza.JPG: -1 <-- 2. St. Casimir Vilnius.JPG: +1 => File:Wilno - kosciol sw. Kazimierza.JPG: Declined. <-- File:St. Casimir Vilnius.JPG: Promoted. --Myrabella (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Ikar.us (talk) on 2010-09-22 23:19 (UTC) Scope: Church of St. Casimir in Vilnius (exterior) Reason: Façade and crown. -- Ikar.us (talk)  Support Here we see the the baroque facade and its two towers, and also the dome (though partially) with its lantern and the crown. This dome seems an important feature of this church ([1]). --Myrabella (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC) MVR Scores: 1. Wilno - kosciol sw. Kazimierza.JPG: -1 2. St. Casimir Vilnius.JPG: +1 <-- => File:Wilno - kosciol sw. Kazimierza.JPG: Declined. File:St. Casimir Vilnius.JPG: Promoted. <-- --Myrabella (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

St. Poelten Townhall

View opposition Nominated by: AleXXw •talk!•me@de.wp on 2010-09-18 17:39 (UTC) Scope: St. Pölten Town hall (St. Pöltner Rathaus)  Question Although this is a huge file, don't you think that this one is much better as a representative photo of this building?--MrPanyGoff (talk) 07:23, 19 September 2010 (UTC) On the other one is a building site in the picture (the STRABAG-sign), in my opinion this shows the town hall better. --AleXXw •talk!•me@de.wp 23:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)  Comment Firstly, I would like to know if the community here likes this scope. If you are positive I'm thinking about opening a "Most Valued Review".--MrPanyGoff (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC) "the community" hasn't spoken yet... The town hall of a state capital should be acceptable. --Ikar.us (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Yes, there have been previous cases (see Commons:Valued images by topic#Institutional). More innovative is the way to format the scope. I find it interesting, referring to the last remark of that former inconclusive discussion about toponymy. --Myrabella (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)  Oppose Tight crop, tilted, dark grayish colours. Moreover, there are distracting people in the foreground that are cut in some confusing way.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC) MVR Scores: 1. Rathaus St. Pölten.jpg: -1 <-- 2. St. Poelten Rathaus 2.jpg: +2 => File:Rathaus St. Pölten.jpg: Declined. <-- File:St. Poelten Rathaus 2.jpg: Promoted. --Myrabella (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: MrPanyGoff (talk) on 2010-09-23 10:08 (UTC) Scope: St. Pölten Town hall (St. Pöltner Rathaus) Reason: I think this one presents the building better. It is well composed, brighter and there are few people that are not distracting here. -- MrPanyGoff (talk)  Support The STRABAG sign is ugly, but the lesser evil. It's somehow informative, because it indicates thet the interior has changed. --Ikar.us (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)  Support this one. Furthermore, I like the two persons (in love ?) near the sign...--Jebulon (talk) 23:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC) MVR Scores: 1. Rathaus St. Pölten.jpg: -1 2. St. Poelten Rathaus 2.jpg: +2 <-- => File:Rathaus St. Pölten.jpg: Declined. File:St. Poelten Rathaus 2.jpg: Promoted. <-- --Myrabella (talk) 21:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Aleuria aurantia (Orange Peel Fungus)

View promotion Nominated by: The High Fin Sperm Whale on 2010-10-04 19:24 (UTC) Scope: Aleuria aurantia (Orange Peel Fungus) Reason: Lycaon suggested that I take one showing the cup shape. Here it is. -- The High Fin Sperm Whale  Support Yes, this one is better IMO --George Chernilevsky talk 09:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)  Support Better view, shows spore surface as well as upper surface. Also, less obstructed. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)  Comment Much better. I would have supported if if hadn't already opposed the other one. Lycaon (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC) Scores: 1. Orange peel fungus.JPG: +2 2. Aleuria aurantia (Orange Peel Fungus).JPG: -1 => File:Orange peel fungus.JPG: Promoted. File:Aleuria aurantia (Orange Peel Fungus).JPG: Declined --George Chernilevsky talk 07:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: The High Fin Sperm Whale on 2010-10-04 00:51 (UTC) Scope: Aleuria aurantia (Orange Peel Fungus)  Oppose I have to oppose on criterion 3 here. IMO this is not the best view for this kind of fungus. A top view does not nicely reveal the 3D cup shape. If this specimen is still there, I'd suggest a re-shoot but not from straight above. Lycaon (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC) Scores: 1. Orange peel fungus.JPG: +2 2. Aleuria aurantia (Orange Peel Fungus).JPG: -1 => File:Orange peel fungus.JPG: Promoted. File:Aleuria aurantia (Orange Peel Fungus).JPG: Declined --George Chernilevsky talk 07:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Trakai Island Castle

View opposition Nominated by: Albertus teolog (talk) on 2010-09-24 14:30 (UTC) Scope: Trakai Island Castle I'm terribly sorry - I like all your images - but they're often popular locations, thus many contestants are available. Here, is a very similar view, but with transparent trees, and a slightly different perpective, which shows the left side better, not hiding anything else. --Ikar.us (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC) MVR Scores: 1. Troki - zamek.JPG: 0 <-- 2. Trakaifront.JPG: +1 3. Traku pilis.Zem.2007-11-16.jpg: 0 4. Traku pilis1.Zem.2007-11-16.jpg: 0 => File:Troki - zamek.JPG: Declined. <-- File:Trakaifront.JPG: Promoted. File:Traku pilis.Zem.2007-11-16.jpg: Declined. File:Traku pilis1.Zem.2007-11-16.jpg: Declined. --Myrabella (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: MrPanyGoff (talk) on 2010-09-27 11:58 (UTC) Scope: Trakai Island Castle  Support this. --Ikar.us (talk) 13:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC) MVR Scores: 1. Troki - zamek.JPG: 0 2. Trakaifront.JPG: +1 <-- 3. Traku pilis.Zem.2007-11-16.jpg: 0 4. Traku pilis1.Zem.2007-11-16.jpg: 0 => File:Troki - zamek.JPG: Declined. File:Trakaifront.JPG: Promoted. <-- File:Traku pilis.Zem.2007-11-16.jpg: Declined. File:Traku pilis1.Zem.2007-11-16.jpg: Declined. --Myrabella (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View opposition Nominated by: MrPanyGoff (talk) on 2010-09-27 12:08 (UTC) Scope: Trakai Island Castle MVR Scores: 1. Troki - zamek.JPG: 0 2. Trakaifront.JPG: +1 3. Traku pilis.Zem.2007-11-16.jpg: 0 <-- 4. Traku pilis1.Zem.2007-11-16.jpg: 0 => File:Troki - zamek.JPG: Declined. File:Trakaifront.JPG: Promoted. File:Traku pilis.Zem.2007-11-16.jpg: Declined. <-- File:Traku pilis1.Zem.2007-11-16.jpg: Declined. --Myrabella (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: MrPanyGoff (talk) on 2010-09-27 12:14 (UTC) Scope: Trakai Island Castle MVR Scores: 1. Troki - zamek.JPG: 0 2. Trakaifront.JPG: +1 3. Traku pilis.Zem.2007-11-16.jpg: 0 4. Traku pilis1.Zem.2007-11-16.jpg: 0 <-- => File:Troki - zamek.JPG: Declined. File:Trakaifront.JPG: Promoted. File:Traku pilis.Zem.2007-11-16.jpg: Declined. File:Traku pilis1.Zem.2007-11-16.jpg: Declined. <-- --Myrabella (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Nikon D5000

View opposition Nominated by: The High Fin Sperm Whale on 2010-09-26 02:55 (UTC) Scope: Nikon D5000  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! 18:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC) - Now fixed --Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 19:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)  Comment Agree with Rasta. see this. Lycaon (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC) You want the coordinates of a studio shot of a camera taken in my house? Very well... --The High Fin Sperm Whale 00:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC) No, no, no!. Please read the comments linked to above. Lycaon (talk) 05:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC) I removed the geocoding, and added that it is a studio shot. @Rastaman3000 and Lycaon: You could do that yourself, instead of opposing the image. Yann (talk) 07:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC) Thank you Yann. Sure we could, but once or twice or even ten times, but not again and again and again ;-). Lycaon (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2010 (UTC)  Comment - File:Nikon_D5000.jpg is a strong competitor IMO, as it ilustrates the scope better, although it is smaller. --Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 18:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC) @Rastaman3000: You should open a MVR then. --Myrabella (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)  Support best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC) Scores: 1. Nikon D5000 body.JPG: +1 2. Nikon D5000.jpg: +3 => File:Nikon D5000 body.JPG: Declined. File:Nikon D5000.jpg: Promoted. --George Chernilevsky talk 11:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: The High Fin Sperm Whale on 2010-10-06 01:40 (UTC) Scope: Nikon D5000 Reason: Nobody is sure whether this or my other one is better, so MVR is best. -- The High Fin Sperm Whale  Support - IMO illustrates the scope better. --Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 15:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)  Support Shows the camera better (better perspective). The camera without lens is IMO not that relevant. Lycaon (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)  Support I prefer this perspective. Missionary (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Scores: 1. Nikon D5000 body.JPG: +1 2. Nikon D5000.jpg: +3 => File:Nikon D5000 body.JPG: Declined. File:Nikon D5000.jpg: Promoted. --George Chernilevsky talk 11:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Buffalo Treehopper

View promotion Nominated by: Quartl (talk) on 2010-10-07 16:16 (UTC) Scope: Stictocephala bisonia (Buffalo Treehopper) Reason: Well it's probably a toss-up between one of my pics, but I think this one shows the best detail. -- Quartl (talk)  Comment This (Stictocephala bisonia qtl3.jpg) is technically inferior but more valuable to recognize the species.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC) If you think so, fine with me. I had the impression the species is well recognizable in all the pics. I opened a MVR nevertheless. --Quartl (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)  Support I think this one is better. It is of much higher quality, and at the full res it shows more detail than the other. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 17:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)  Support better quality and resolution Missionary (talk) 20:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Scores: 1. Stictocephala bisonia qtl4.jpg: +2 2. Stictocephala bisonia qtl3.jpg: +1 => File:Stictocephala bisonia qtl4.jpg: Promoted. File:Stictocephala bisonia qtl3.jpg: Declined. --George Chernilevsky talk 11:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Quartl (talk) on 2010-10-07 17:23 (UTC) Scope: Stictocephala bisonia (Buffalo Treehopper)  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Scores: 1. Stictocephala bisonia qtl4.jpg: +2 2. Stictocephala bisonia qtl3.jpg: +1 => File:Stictocephala bisonia qtl4.jpg: Promoted. File:Stictocephala bisonia qtl3.jpg: Declined. --George Chernilevsky talk 11:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Skanskaskrapan (Göteborg)

View opposition Nominated by: Ankara (talk) on 2010-10-05 10:52 (UTC) Scope: Skanskaskrapan  Comment Despite its lower quality, I tend to prefer File:Göteborg Utkiken-Turm .jpg for the scope because there aren't distracting elements across the image and it shows better the base of the building. --Myrabella (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC) You have a point there (criteria 3).--Ankara (talk) 21:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC) I've opened a MVR. --Myrabella (talk) 14:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC) Not being familiar with MVR, I have to ask: It's necessary to include votes against the other candidates, since I've already chose one of the images as the MV? Flávio, o Maddox go! 15:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC) No, it isn't necessary. --Myrabella (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC) MVR Scores: 1. Skanskaskrapan september 2010.jpg: 0 <-- 2. Göteborg Utkiken-Turm .jpg: +3 3. Skanskaskrapan september 2010b.jpg: 0 4. Skanskaskrapan september 2010c.jpg: 0 => File:Skanskaskrapan september 2010.jpg: Declined. <-- File:Göteborg Utkiken-Turm .jpg: Promoted. File:Skanskaskrapan september 2010b.jpg: Declined. File:Skanskaskrapan september 2010c.jpg: Declined. --Myrabella (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	Commons:Valued image candidates/Göteborg Utkiken-Turm.jpg
View opposition Nominated by: Ankara (talk) on 2010-10-11 06:29 (UTC) Scope: Skanskaskrapan MVR Scores: 1. Skanskaskrapan september 2010.jpg: 0 2. Göteborg Utkiken-Turm .jpg: +3 3. Skanskaskrapan september 2010b.jpg: 0 <-- 4. Skanskaskrapan september 2010c.jpg: 0 => File:Skanskaskrapan september 2010.jpg: Declined. File:Göteborg Utkiken-Turm .jpg: Promoted. File:Skanskaskrapan september 2010b.jpg: Declined. <-- File:Skanskaskrapan september 2010c.jpg: Declined. --Myrabella (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Ankara (talk) on 2010-10-11 06:37 (UTC) Scope: Skanskaskrapan MVR Scores: 1. Skanskaskrapan september 2010.jpg: 0 2. Göteborg Utkiken-Turm .jpg: +3 3. Skanskaskrapan september 2010b.jpg: 0 4. Skanskaskrapan september 2010c.jpg: 0 <-- => File:Skanskaskrapan september 2010.jpg: Declined. File:Göteborg Utkiken-Turm .jpg: Promoted. File:Skanskaskrapan september 2010b.jpg: Declined. File:Skanskaskrapan september 2010c.jpg: Declined. <-- --Myrabella (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Dilma Rousseff

View opposition Nominated by: Missionary on 21:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC) Scope: Dilma Rousseff Reason: This is the current MV picture of Dilma Rousseff. I believe it has been superseded by her official portrait. See also: Previous reviews -- Missionary  Info -- This is the present VI, being challenged by the other pictures in the MVR. Please add new comments and votes below. Scores: 1. Dilma Rousseff official.png: +0 2. Dilma_Rousseff_2010.jpg: +0 (current VI within same scope) <-- 3. Dilma Rousseff - foto oficial 2011-01-09.jpg: +2 => File:Dilma Rousseff official.png: Declined. File:Dilma_Rousseff_2010.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Dilma Rousseff - foto oficial 2011-01-09.jpg: Promoted. --George Chernilevsky talk 19:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Missionary on 2010-10-12 18:04 (UTC) Scope: Dilma Rousseff Reason: I'm attempting to revive this discussion, as I believe we have a better image of Dilma since this file was given VI status, namely, Dilma Rousseff 2010.jpg. In the other picture, she's facing the camera directly, rather than looking upwards, and is smiling. In addition, here she's wearing a wig, instead of her current hairstyle. This one's inferior, in my opinion. See also: Previous reviews -- Missionary  Info -- This is the present VI, being challenged by the other picture in the MVR. Please add new comments and votes below.  Oppose - Missionary (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC) As the nominator, you cannot vote. --Eusebius (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)  Oppose - old photo and she's using a whig. Prowiki (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)  Oppose Does not really depicts the person as she looks now.--Jebulon (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)  Support This image portray the time, good pic. -- VIGI-AP (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)  Oppose. She´s wearing a wig. Ricco21 (talk) 17:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)  Comment - Why the wig is so important? Criteria 1 and 2 are fully satisfied in this one, takin the wig aside. Flávio, o Maddox go! 05:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC) MVR Scores: 1. Dilma Rousseff 2010.jpg: +1 2. Dilma Rousseff 2009.jpg: -2 (current VI within same scope) <-- 3. Dilma (2009).jpg: -2 => File:Dilma Rousseff 2010.jpg: Promoted. File:Dilma Rousseff 2009.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Dilma (2009).jpg: Declined. --Myrabella (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View opposition Nominated by: MrPanyGoff (talk) on 2010-10-13 16:14 (UTC) Scope: Dilma Rousseff Reason: Good representative photo. Good quality. It gives the idea of businesslike manners and the political occupation of the subject. Also, I think that here Dilma looks most beautiful ;) --MrPanyGoff (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC) -- MrPanyGoff (talk)  Support Whereas the first nomination might show anybody from an astronaut to an actress, this one really does illustrate her being a politician. --MichaelBueker (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)  Support Per MichaelBueker. --Myrabella (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)  Oppose Here she was wearing a wig, during her battle against cancer. The natural hairstyle shown on file Dilma Rousseff 2010.jpg is that with which people are most familiar. Thus, this picture is not so good in terms of illustration. Missionary (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)  Oppose Oh my god, this picture is terrible!!! And she's using a whig. Hahahahahaha Prowiki (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)  Oppose She doesn't look so now. And it is not because she is here behind microphone that she is a politician. IMO, she looks more "politician" on the first photo, even president Lula da Silva is cropped out from the picture!!!!--Jebulon (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)  Oppose She doesn't look so now. Ricco21 (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC) MVR Scores: 1. Dilma Rousseff 2010.jpg: +1 2. Dilma Rousseff 2009.jpg: -2 (current VI within same scope) 3. Dilma (2009).jpg: -2 <-- => File:Dilma Rousseff 2010.jpg: Promoted. File:Dilma Rousseff 2009.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. File:Dilma (2009).jpg: Declined. <-- --Myrabella (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)