Commons:Closed most valued reviews/2011/03

Closed most valued reviews/2011/03

Hanging Church, Cairo (exterior)

View opposition Nominated by: Berthold Werner (talk) on 2011-02-03 12:12 (UTC) Scope: Hanging Church, Cairo (exterior) Reason: Famous coptic church, there articles in five Wikipedias about this church and a lot of references. -- Berthold Werner (talk)  Comment Can you compete with this one ? ;) --MrPanyGoff 08:28, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Scores: 1. Kairo Hanging Church BW 1.jpg: 0 2. Cairo, Old Cairo, Hanging Church, Egypt, Oct 2004 edit.jpg: +1 => File:Kairo Hanging Church BW 1.jpg: Declined. File:Cairo, Old Cairo, Hanging Church, Egypt, Oct 2004 edit.jpg: Promoted. --MrPanyGoff 15:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: MrPanyGoff on 2011-02-08 11:24 (UTC) Scope: Hanging Church, Cairo (exterior) Reason: Looks more clear without the crowd. Also the well presented passageway gives additional important information about the complicated situation.--MrPanyGoff 11:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC) -- MrPanyGoff  Support This one, according to the nominator's arguments.--Jebulon (talk) 16:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Scores: 1. Kairo Hanging Church BW 1.jpg: 0 2. Cairo, Old Cairo, Hanging Church, Egypt, Oct 2004 edit.jpg: +1 => File:Kairo Hanging Church BW 1.jpg: Declined. File:Cairo, Old Cairo, Hanging Church, Egypt, Oct 2004 edit.jpg: Promoted. --MrPanyGoff 15:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Great Temple (Petra)

View opposition Nominated by: Bgag (talk) on 2011-02-17 13:28 (UTC) Scope: Great Temple (Petra)  Comment - Isn't this: better and more informative as general?--MrPanyGoff 16:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)  Comment I have hesitated between these two pictures before make the nomination but you are probably right. Let's see what the other people think. --Bgag (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)  Comment I understand the hesitations ! This one is facing, with few tourists (pro), but missing informations provided by the other, maybe a bit tilted too (contra). Same technical qualities for both (neutral)...--Jebulon (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Scores: 1. Great Temple of Petra 01.jpg: 0 2. Great Temple of Petra 02.jpg: +1 => File:Great Temple of Petra 01.jpg: Declined. File:Great Temple of Petra 02.jpg: Promoted. --MrPanyGoff 15:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Bgag (talk) on 2011-02-18 18:19 (UTC) Scope: Great Temple (Petra) I  Support this one. It is more informative and even has a higher tech quality, imo.--MrPanyGoff 20:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)  Comment This one gives more infos about the monument itself (pro) but has more tourists and is not facing (contra). The gate is pro and contra IMO (more info, but out of scope and distracting). No quality issues like the other. Please help !!--Jebulon (talk) 16:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Scores: 1. Great Temple of Petra 01.jpg: 0 2. Great Temple of Petra 02.jpg: +1 => File:Great Temple of Petra 01.jpg: Declined. File:Great Temple of Petra 02.jpg: Promoted. --MrPanyGoff 15:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke, Duisburg

View opposition Nominated by: kaʁstn Disk/Cat on 2011-01-31 18:26 (UTC) Scope: Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke, Duisburg Reason: it's the only image that shows the entire brigde -- kaʁstn Disk/Cat  Comment Also very good dynamic photo. It shows the entire bridge but in strong foreshortening. Since there is one more image in this category that deserves some attention, what do you think about competition in MVR section ;) --MrPanyGoff 21:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC) * CommentI would prefer nigth version. --Mile (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)* Support Per nominator's reason.--Jebulon (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Scores: 1. Duisburg, 2011-01 CN-II, Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke.jpg: +1 2. Duisburg-Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke.jpg: +2 3. Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke, Duisburg Nacht, 2010-11 CN-I.jpg: -1 4. Duisburg, 2011-01 CN-V, Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke.jpg: +1 => File:Duisburg, 2011-01 CN-II, Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke.jpg: Declined. File:Duisburg-Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke.jpg: Promoted. File:Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke, Duisburg Nacht, 2010-11 CN-I.jpg: Declined. File:Duisburg, 2011-01 CN-V, Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke.jpg: Declined. --George Chernilevsky talk 21:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: MrPanyGoff on 2011-02-03 09:05 (UTC) Scope: Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke, Duisburg Reason: Alternative view with not so strong foreshortening. -- MrPanyGoff  Support To me the most illustrative of the three candidates. --Myrabella (talk) 20:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)  Oppose I saw this before, that bush/tree bothers me. --Mile (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC)  Support The piers at either end are unobstructed and are important to understand the construction of the bridge. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)  Oppose the left edge is missing --kaʁstn Disk/Cat 11:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC) Nominator's vote not allowed, sorry. Only as comment -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Scores: 1. Duisburg, 2011-01 CN-II, Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke.jpg: +1 2. Duisburg-Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke.jpg: +2 3. Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke, Duisburg Nacht, 2010-11 CN-I.jpg: -1 4. Duisburg, 2011-01 CN-V, Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke.jpg: +1 => File:Duisburg, 2011-01 CN-II, Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke.jpg: Declined. File:Duisburg-Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke.jpg: Promoted. File:Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke, Duisburg Nacht, 2010-11 CN-I.jpg: Declined. File:Duisburg, 2011-01 CN-V, Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke.jpg: Declined. --George Chernilevsky talk 21:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
Commons:Valued image candidates/Duisburg, Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke, 2010-11 CN-01.jpg	View opposition Nominated by: kaʁstn Disk/Cat on 2011-02-10 17:20 (UTC) Scope: Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke, Duisburg Reason: Another version -- kaʁstn Disk/Cat  Support Also good. --Mile (talk) 10:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC) Scores: 1. Duisburg, 2011-01 CN-II, Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke.jpg: +1 2. Duisburg-Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke.jpg: +2 3. Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke, Duisburg Nacht, 2010-11 CN-I.jpg: -1 4. Duisburg, 2011-01 CN-V, Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke.jpg: +1 => File:Duisburg, 2011-01 CN-II, Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke.jpg: Declined. File:Duisburg-Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke.jpg: Promoted. File:Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke, Duisburg Nacht, 2010-11 CN-I.jpg: Declined. File:Duisburg, 2011-01 CN-V, Friedrich-Ebert-Brücke.jpg: Declined. --George Chernilevsky talk 21:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Acca sellowiana (Pineapple Guava), Flower

View opposition Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2011-01-15 12:53 (UTC) Scope: Acca sellowiana (Pineapple Guava), Flower  Support Even if I miss the bud of the other, I prefer this one...--Jebulon (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Scores: 1. Acca sellowiana 002.JPG: +1 2. Feijoa sellowiana_.jpg: +2 3. Feijoa sellowiana edit.jpg: +0 => File:Acca sellowiana 002.JPG: Declined File:Feijoa sellowiana_.jpg: Promoted. File:Feijoa sellowiana edit.jpg: Declined. --George Chernilevsky talk 21:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2011-01-15 14:58 (UTC) Scope: Acca sellowiana (Pineapple Guava), Flower Reason: no geocoding : Studio shoot -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk)  Support This candidate far more illustrative IMO --George Chernilevsky talk 18:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)  Support I find this one more illustrative too.--Myrabella (talk) 08:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Scores: 1. Acca sellowiana 002.JPG: +1 2. Feijoa sellowiana_.jpg: +2 3. Feijoa sellowiana edit.jpg: +0 => File:Acca sellowiana 002.JPG: Declined File:Feijoa sellowiana_.jpg: Promoted. File:Feijoa sellowiana edit.jpg: Declined. --George Chernilevsky talk 21:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View opposition Nominated by: Mile (talk) on 2011-02-07 20:00 (UTC) Scope: Acca sellowiana (Pineapple Guava), Flower Reason: I couldnt decide from those two (first one is sharper and better IQ, while second one has QI template and its unsharp-spoiled f/25, so...), i liked this one, and its Feautered on Wiki.en. -- Mile (talk)  Support --Mile (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Sorry, Mile, you can make a comment but not vote: "neither the nominator nor the original image author may vote", see the VICs guidelines. --Myrabella (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC) Scores: 1. Acca sellowiana 002.JPG: +1 2. Feijoa sellowiana_.jpg: +2 3. Feijoa sellowiana edit.jpg: +0 => File:Acca sellowiana 002.JPG: Declined File:Feijoa sellowiana_.jpg: Promoted. File:Feijoa sellowiana edit.jpg: Declined. --George Chernilevsky talk 21:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Macaron

View opposition Nominated by: Myrabella (talk) on 2011-02-17 16:09 (UTC) Scope: Macaron Reason: A macaron from a famous French pastry chef, and a technical test because VIC nomination tool is disabled now. -- Myrabella (talk)  Comment - Are you serious with this nomination? ;) So many good images are there. And I think that there is no need of geotagging here. --MrPanyGoff 20:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC) I have a good candidate for a MVR, but the tool is indeed still disabled...--Jebulon (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC) It is mainly a test, but it can be taken as an ususal nomination too (moreover, the test would be more complete if someone reviewed that nomination :-) --Myrabella (talk) 16:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC) I've just looked again in the category counting about 15 images that can be VI in this scope. Even MVR seems impossible to me.--MrPanyGoff 08:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC) What would it be if you had to choose an image for the scope "Sunsets at sea"! Fortunately, there is already a VI for that scope :-) --Myrabella (talk) 09:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Scores: 1. Macaron 2.jpg: 0 2. French macarons, August 2009.jpg: 0 3. A rainbow of macarons (part deux).jpg: 0 4. Arc-en-ciel comestible.jpg: +2 => File:Macaron 2.jpg: Declined. File:French macarons, August 2009.jpg: Declined. File:A rainbow of macarons (part deux).jpg: Declined. File:Arc-en-ciel comestible.jpg: Promoted. --George Chernilevsky talk 22:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: MrPanyGoff on 2011-02-22 12:42 (UTC) Scope: Macaron Reason: For me this gives the best idea of the product and the image is somehow cosy. -- MrPanyGoff Scores: 1. Macaron 2.jpg: 0 2. French macarons, August 2009.jpg: 0 3. A rainbow of macarons (part deux).jpg: 0 4. Arc-en-ciel comestible.jpg: +2 => File:Macaron 2.jpg: Declined. File:French macarons, August 2009.jpg: Declined. File:A rainbow of macarons (part deux).jpg: Declined. File:Arc-en-ciel comestible.jpg: Promoted. --George Chernilevsky talk 22:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View opposition Nominated by: MrPanyGoff on 2011-02-22 12:45 (UTC) Scope: Macaron Scores: 1. Macaron 2.jpg: 0 2. French macarons, August 2009.jpg: 0 3. A rainbow of macarons (part deux).jpg: 0 4. Arc-en-ciel comestible.jpg: +2 => File:Macaron 2.jpg: Declined. File:French macarons, August 2009.jpg: Declined. File:A rainbow of macarons (part deux).jpg: Declined. File:Arc-en-ciel comestible.jpg: Promoted. --George Chernilevsky talk 22:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: MrPanyGoff on 2011-02-22 12:52 (UTC) Scope: Macaron  Support OK to me for these macarons from Ladurée. This image shows how various macarons can be. The intent of the nominated image was to depict a single piece, and its structure (and it was a Pierre Hermé macaron :-) --Myrabella (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)  Support - Good candidate, per Myrabella -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Scores: 1. Macaron 2.jpg: 0 2. French macarons, August 2009.jpg: 0 3. A rainbow of macarons (part deux).jpg: 0 4. Arc-en-ciel comestible.jpg: +2 => File:Macaron 2.jpg: Declined. File:French macarons, August 2009.jpg: Declined. File:A rainbow of macarons (part deux).jpg: Declined. File:Arc-en-ciel comestible.jpg: Promoted. --George Chernilevsky talk 22:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

The Capitol, Republic of Palau (exterior)

[[File:|160px]] View promotion Nominated by: Jon Harald Søby (talk) on 2011-02-10 22:38 (UTC) Scope: The Capitol, Republic of Palau (exterior) Reason: Very good picture of the parliament of a country that is badly represented on Commons. -- Jon Harald Søby (talk)  Comment Melekeok is a name of a state and a name of a village of the same name in the Republic of Palau. The image shows the parliament building of the republic which is located in Ngerulmud. So I think the scope here should be: The Republic of Palau Capitol (exterior) or The Capitol House of Palau (exterior) or something like that. The scope should link this category. --MrPanyGoff 15:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC) Yes, you are of course right. Fixed. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 20:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC) I didn't mean you to use the same name as the linked category. This scope is somehow still too general. It better be the specific name of the represented building as my suggestions above, if you like them of course. The Capitol, Palau (exterior) is another configuration. BTW, what do you think about the cropped version: . --MrPanyGoff 16:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC) In my opinion, not only the country is badly represented in "Commons", but his official building too... I think that this House of Parliament is fine enough to deserve an own category. Furthermore, I agree with MrPanyGoff about a good scope, his suggestion sounds good to me. After that, let them compete...--Jebulon (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)  Comment - Please add Geotag --Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 18:57, 26 February 2011 (UTC) Scope changed from Government buildings in Palau to The Capitol, Republic of Palau (exterior) --MrPanyGoff 13:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC) Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn". Thank you, I forgot about this. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC) Geotag added --MrPanyGoff 13:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)  Support as striking image depicts subject well - wide crop gives better sense of scale -- Matthew Proctor (talk) 01:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC) MVR Scores: 1. Capitol-complex-melekeok-palau20071220.jpg: +1 <-- 2. Capitol-complex-melekeok-palau20071220 crop.jpg: 0 => File:Capitol-complex-melekeok-palau20071220.jpg: Promoted. <-- File:Capitol-complex-melekeok-palau20071220 crop.jpg: Declined. --Myrabella (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	[[File:|160px]] View opposition Nominated by: MrPanyGoff on 2011-02-27 13:46 (UTC) Scope: The Capitol, Republic of Palau (exterior)  Info Cropped version.--MrPanyGoff 13:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC) MVR Scores: 1. Capitol-complex-melekeok-palau20071220.jpg: +1 2. Capitol-complex-melekeok-palau20071220 crop.jpg: 0 <-- => File:Capitol-complex-melekeok-palau20071220.jpg: Promoted. File:Capitol-complex-melekeok-palau20071220 crop.jpg: Declined. <-- --Myrabella (talk) 18:02, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Golgotha in Church of the Holy Sepulchre

View opposition Nominated by: Berthold Werner (talk) on 2009-02-07 16:27 (UTC) Scope: Golgotha in Church of the Holy Sepulchre  Info -- This is the present VI, challenged by the other pictures in the MVR. See previous reviews. Please add new comments and votes below. MVR Scores: 1. Jerusalem Holy Sepulchre BW 10.JPG: 0 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Jerusalem Holy Sepulchre BW 18.JPG: +2 => File:Jerusalem Holy Sepulchre BW 10.JPG: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Jerusalem Holy Sepulchre BW 18.JPG: Promoted. --Myrabella (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Berthold Werner (talk) on 2011-02-27 16:04 (UTC) Scope: Golgotha in Church of the Holy Sepulchre Reason: Better than the picture that is now VI for this scope -- Berthold Werner (talk)  Support per nominator's reason --George Chernilevsky talk 19:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC) MVR Scores: 1. Jerusalem Holy Sepulchre BW 10.JPG: 0 (current VI within same scope) 2. Jerusalem Holy Sepulchre BW 18.JPG: +2 <-- => File:Jerusalem Holy Sepulchre BW 10.JPG: Declined and demoted to VI-former. File:Jerusalem Holy Sepulchre BW 18.JPG: Promoted. <-- --Myrabella (talk) 18:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Male Passer melanurus

View promotion Nominated by: —innotata on 2011-02-21 22:13 (UTC) Scope: Passer melanurus male (Cape Sparrow) Reason: Part of a Most Valued Review: I think this image is better than the current VI for this scope (for illustrating the appearance of the bird), but they are very similar, by the same uploader, and from the same place. I believe that I added it to the English Wikipedia article after a suggestion at en:T:TDYK, and it was featured on the main page of the English Wikipedia. It also is now used in more articles on the species on the different Wikipedias. -- —innotata  Comment As if I tend to this one but still have hesitation.--MrPanyGoff 16:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Finally, I decided to  Support this image. It seems to me more illustrative and better representation than the other competitor which gives a view in foreshortening.--MrPanyGoff 11:25, 2 March 2011 (UTC)  Support best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Scores: 1. Passer melanurus (2 males).jpg: +2 2. Passer melanurus (male).jpg: +0 (current VI within same scope) <-- => File:Passer melanurus (2 males).jpg: Promoted. File:Passer melanurus (male).jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- --George Chernilevsky talk 19:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Lycaon (talk) on 2009-02-07 14:22 (UTC) Scope: Passer melanurus male (Cape Sparrow) Used in: en:Cape Sparrow, nl:Passer (geslacht)  Info -- This is the present VI, challenged by the other pictures in the MVR. See previous reviews. Please add new comments and votes below. Scores: 1. Passer melanurus (2 males).jpg: +2 2. Passer melanurus (male).jpg: +0 (current VI within same scope) <-- => File:Passer melanurus (2 males).jpg: Promoted. File:Passer melanurus (male).jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- --George Chernilevsky talk 19:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

John McEnroe

View opposition Nominated by: MrPanyGoff on 2011-02-15 15:37 (UTC) Scope: John McEnroe  Question Isn't the most ideal illustrative photo of a tennisman while playing tennis? --Coyau (talk) 12:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)  Oppose Agree with Coyau. This picture does not "depict the subject well", IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC) Partly agree. I'm going to choose some more images to open a MVR.--MrPanyGoff 08:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC) MVR is a good idea, but I should like to point out that the subject is notable enough that subscopes of headshot or playing may be warranted and desirable. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Thanks for reminding this idea. This is it.--MrPanyGoff 18:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC) I'm not sure I agree. How many subscopes are possible for this man ? "Playing tennis", "Head shot" (Passing shot would have been better...;) ? OK. Then, why not Head shot of John Mc Enroe playing tennis ?Why not as TV-radio commentator (we have some). Should we have a scope or subscope for every situation ? John mc Enroe at swimming pool, John mc Enroe at barbecue... JmcE is a tennis player for History, IMO... So we must have a scope of John Mc Enroe, and the "best in scope" should be a picture when he plays tennis. The rest sounds artificial to me. Now, please consider this question with another notable person: Mr Obama (head shot) or Mr Obama (as president of the United States). Should we agree of such scopes ? And why not subscopes due to the age ? Remember a recent MVR: Mark Twain (head shot) or Mark Twain (juvenile specimen) ? We didn't do so... I think that the "scope" matter is complicated enough (everybody says this), we don't need to complicate it more. Well, only an opinion (sounds possibly confusing, but it is due to bad english, sorry. Je sais que je serais plus convaincant en français !)--Jebulon (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC) Scope changed from John McEnroe to John McEnroe (head shot) --MrPanyGoff 19:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".  Best in Scope --Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)  Oppose I disagree with this new scope, because of the reasons above. I am very interested to continue this discussion, my friends !--Jebulon (talk) 17:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC) If there is some complication it is because of endless discussions here. In this case the things are so obvious that it doesn't need a discussion but just some clarification. The corner stone here is called Face Recognition which is the major thing if you want to know somebody. The encyclopedia is a source of information and when it comes to photos (especially of people) the Face Recognition is among the most important information which some can get from here. Me, you and thousands of people know well who is McEnroe but millions of people know just his name and the fact that he is a famous tennisman. These people enjoy images of tennismen playing but they need to get a Face Recognition out of here. The comparission with people like Mr Obama or Sarkozy ;) is not correct because their main activity gives us Face Recognition all of the time. There are some activiies (mostly sportsmen) where otherwise famous people are not recognizable by face that's why this online encylopedia gives the unique chance introducing the audience to their heroes. That's why we can use these specific and logical subscopes (not random as your somehow offencive barbecue suggestion). This allows presenting of second photo with the main activity - somеthing which is not needed when people like Mr Obama are nominated here. As additional examples I give these two comparisons of images of other two famous sportsmen: Alain Prost 1 and Alain Prost 2 / Hermann Maier 1 and probably Hermann Maier 2 ! You know man, I like to watch skiing and I watched Hermann Maier many times but here for the first time I met him ;)--MrPanyGoff 10:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Actually, for me this is the best photo of McEnroe in commons: . I nominated the portrait looking one because of the usual manner of presenting people here.--MrPanyGoff 10:42, 23 February 2011 (UTC)  Oppose I tend to agree with Jebulon, a subscope is not necessary here. Note that there are some previous cases where the chosen VI for notable people hasn't been a portrait, but a shot in action or with the symbols of the activity he/she is mainly known for. Examples: 1 or 2. Fell free to nominate the image you find the most illustrative for the simple scope "John McEnroe". To me, subscopes for a people scope should be an exception duly legitimated—"Achilles (heel)" for example. --Myrabella (talk) 09:18, 24 February 2011 (UTC)  Comment I think a subscope is merited since this image is used in 26 articles on 21 sister projects. It complements images of the subject playing, e.g., File:John_McEnroe_WTT.jpg used 31 times. Based on usage, this image is much more notable than most of my promoted images. I am inclined to agree with the initial opinion of MrPanyGoff that this is the best image in mainscope, also, but Coyau and Jebulon don't agree. One way forward is a MVR for mainscope and, subsequently, a subscope nomination for the runner up. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC) Scope changed from John McEnroe (head shot) to John McEnroe --MrPanyGoff 19:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn". Back to the initial scope.--MrPanyGoff 21:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)  Best in Scope I think a portrait is best for mainscope; many of the photographs of the subject playing do not depict his features well. While subscopes for individuals may potentially be troublesome, I think the argument is compelling for a subscope for prominent individuals that are not well-depicted in images showing them engaged in their work. Besides athletes, subscopes may be warranted for actors and other performers. "Valued images are images which are considered especially valuable by the Commons community for use in online content within other Wikimedia projects." Most articles on John McEnroe employ both a portrait and an action shot, e.g., en: John_McEnroe. Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC) I withdraw my previous oppose vote; was put on because of the subscope. --Myrabella (talk) 09:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC) Idem.--Jebulon (talk) 11:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC) @Jebulon. Are you holding your first previous oppose vote with the current scope (19-feb.: This picture does not "depict the subject well")? This question for the final votes counting. --Myrabella (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC) @Myrabella. Yes I do. I support the other one, and still oppose here, per Coyau.--Jebulon (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Scores: 1. John McEnroe by David Shankbone.jpg: +1 2. US Open 2009 4th round 622.jpg: +2 => File:John McEnroe by David Shankbone.jpg: Declined. File:US Open 2009 4th round 622.jpg: Promoted. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: MrPanyGoff on 2011-02-25 21:16 (UTC) Scope: John McEnroe Reason: OK, I open a MVR with these two images that I find the best so far in the scope John McEnroe. -- MrPanyGoff  Support Because it shows today a highlight of what I remember of this great tennis player. Very good !--Jebulon (talk) 11:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)  Support per Jebulon --Matthew Proctor (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Scores: 1. John McEnroe by David Shankbone.jpg: +1 2. US Open 2009 4th round 622.jpg: +2 => File:John McEnroe by David Shankbone.jpg: Declined. File:US Open 2009 4th round 622.jpg: Promoted. --George Chernilevsky talk 20:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Ait Benhaddou Ksar

View opposition Nominated by: MrPanyGoff on 2011-02-26 11:13 (UTC) Scope: Ait Benhaddou Ksar Reason: A high resolution informative panoramics view of this old Maroccan ksar (old Berber settlement). -- MrPanyGoff  Comment If there is something that bothers you in this nomination then please specify it! Do you see some criterion which is not satisfied?--MrPanyGoff 16:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC) It's a place I know well and I prefer this picture: Flickr - nice stringer - Ait Benhaddou.jpg. The panoramic view shrinks too, the hill. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC) OK, I uploaded two more very good views and I'm going to open a MVR.--MrPanyGoff 21:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Scores: 1. Ait Benhaddou Pano.jpg: +0 2. AïtBenhaddou Morocco 2.jpg: +2 3. AïtBenhaddou Morocco 1.jpg: +0 4. Aït-Ben-Haddou.jpg: +0 => File:Ait Benhaddou Pano.jpg: Declined. File:AïtBenhaddou Morocco 2.jpg: Promoted. File:AïtBenhaddou Morocco 1.jpg: Declined. File:Aït-Ben-Haddou.jpg: Declined. --MrPanyGoff 10:47, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: MrPanyGoff on 2011-03-02 06:36 (UTC) Scope: Ait Benhaddou Ksar  Support best in scope for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)  Support agree.--Jebulon (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Scores: 1. Ait Benhaddou Pano.jpg: +0 2. AïtBenhaddou Morocco 2.jpg: +2 3. AïtBenhaddou Morocco 1.jpg: +0 4. Aït-Ben-Haddou.jpg: +0 => File:Ait Benhaddou Pano.jpg: Declined. File:AïtBenhaddou Morocco 2.jpg: Promoted. File:AïtBenhaddou Morocco 1.jpg: Declined. File:Aït-Ben-Haddou.jpg: Declined. --MrPanyGoff 10:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View opposition Nominated by: MrPanyGoff on 2011-03-02 06:38 (UTC) Scope: Ait Benhaddou Ksar Scores: 1. Ait Benhaddou Pano.jpg: +0 2. AïtBenhaddou Morocco 2.jpg: +2 3. AïtBenhaddou Morocco 1.jpg: +0 4. Aït-Ben-Haddou.jpg: +0 => File:Ait Benhaddou Pano.jpg: Declined. File:AïtBenhaddou Morocco 2.jpg: Promoted. File:AïtBenhaddou Morocco 1.jpg: Declined. File:Aït-Ben-Haddou.jpg: Declined. --MrPanyGoff 10:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: MrPanyGoff on 2011-03-02 06:48 (UTC) Scope: Ait Benhaddou Ksar Scores: 1. Ait Benhaddou Pano.jpg: +0 2. AïtBenhaddou Morocco 2.jpg: +2 3. AïtBenhaddou Morocco 1.jpg: +0 4. Aït-Ben-Haddou.jpg: +0 => File:Ait Benhaddou Pano.jpg: Declined. File:AïtBenhaddou Morocco 2.jpg: Promoted. File:AïtBenhaddou Morocco 1.jpg: Declined. File:Aït-Ben-Haddou.jpg: Declined. --MrPanyGoff 10:46, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Cement works

View opposition Nominated by: Myrabella (talk) on 2011-02-20 16:20 (UTC) Scope: Cement works I've seen two or three visually good possible competitors in the category, but none was geocoded...I tend to promote.--Jebulon (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC) I wish you did... More seriously, you can indicate the other images you've noticed. I guess that cement plants can be located on a map, and we could try to geotag those images. --Myrabella (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)  Info I find two interesting fotos File:Schelklingen 1288.jpg and File:Slemmestad siloer01.jpg. --Mile (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)  Info I've geocoded both of them. Info: those two sites belongs to the same group, HeidelbergCement (4th largest cement producerin the world), Norcem being a subsidiary of HeidelbergCement. The second alternative image shows a cement terminal. A cement plant would be preferable IMO, thus here is a Norcem cement plant, now geocoded and better categorized. Could you please open a MVR? --Myrabella (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)  Comment The MVR section is crammed at the moment. More activity is needed.--MrPanyGoff 07:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC) Some MVRs can be closed (see Commons:Valued image closure#Closing most valued reviews). I will take a look on it. -- Myrabella (talk) 08:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)  Question Does not a cement work need water ? I don't see water here.--Jebulon (talk) 01:08, 6 March 2011 (UTC) This one is by a river, called Paillon. You will see it on the map, thanks to the geocode. --Myrabella (talk) 08:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC) ok, but it is not visible here. That's why I think this picture is probably not the most representative...--Jebulon (talk) 16:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)  Info By the way, the most common way to make cement nowadays seems to be the dry process (fr:WP). --Myrabella (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Tu penses bien que j'ai lu l'article ! Il ne semble pas exclu qu'il faille aussi de l'eau pour le "dry process"...;)--Jebulon (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Au point de rendre indispensable la présence visuelle de l'eau dans la photo? Is it so important that we need to see water in the image? --Myrabella (talk) 23:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)  Comment For me watter is not problem, what bothers me most is : its so empty, it should be factory, site of working, moving, noise, dust, smoke, so i really miss some trucks un/loading and people there. Now its looks scarry, wouldnt mind scope "Abandoned". --Mile (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Well, there isn't much activity in that alternative image you've pointed out, is it? :-) Concerning the nominated picture, I admit that mid-August might not be the best period to shoot this plant. --Myrabella (talk) 21:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Composition is better, more full, and railway suggets there migth be someone alive around. Trully all are very lonelynees, miss lively scene. --Mile (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)  Request Some more opinions/votes. --Mile (talk) 23:05, 7 March 2011 (UTC) Scores: 1. 06 Contes cimenterie.jpg: +0 2. Schelklingen 1288.jpg: +2 3. Slemmestad siloer01.jpg: +1 4. Norcem Brevik fra sjøen.JPG: +0 => File:06 Contes cimenterie.jpg: Declined. File:Schelklingen 1288.jpg: Promoted. File:Slemmestad siloer01.jpg: Declined. File:Norcem Brevik fra sjøen.JPG: Declined. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: MrPanyGoff on 2011-03-01 15:51 (UTC) Scope: Cement works  Comment This is my favourite.--MrPanyGoff 10:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)  Support Agree: actually, it can be said the most illustrative. It is a big production unit of a big company ([1]), and now this image is geocoded. In addition, it shows transport facilities linked with the cement works, which are important for that industry. --Myrabella (talk) 17:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)  Support Not bad neither. --Mile (talk) 12:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Scores: 1. 06 Contes cimenterie.jpg: +0 2. Schelklingen 1288.jpg: +2 3. Slemmestad siloer01.jpg: +1 4. Norcem Brevik fra sjøen.JPG: +0 => File:06 Contes cimenterie.jpg: Declined. File:Schelklingen 1288.jpg: Promoted. File:Slemmestad siloer01.jpg: Declined. File:Norcem Brevik fra sjøen.JPG: Declined. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View opposition Nominated by: MrPanyGoff on 2011-03-01 15:56 (UTC) Scope: Cement works  Support I like this one. --Mile (talk) 13:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)  Comment Note that is one isn't a cement plant, but a only a terminal. --Myrabella (talk) 08:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)  Comment Doesnt terminal goes under cement works ? Maybe narrowing scope to cement production/cement plant ? --Mile (talk) 13:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC) Scores: 1. 06 Contes cimenterie.jpg: +0 2. Schelklingen 1288.jpg: +2 3. Slemmestad siloer01.jpg: +1 4. Norcem Brevik fra sjøen.JPG: +0 => File:06 Contes cimenterie.jpg: Declined. File:Schelklingen 1288.jpg: Promoted. File:Slemmestad siloer01.jpg: Declined. File:Norcem Brevik fra sjøen.JPG: Declined. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Myrabella (talk) on 2011-03-01 21:18 (UTC) Scope: Cement works Scores: 1. 06 Contes cimenterie.jpg: +0 2. Schelklingen 1288.jpg: +2 3. Slemmestad siloer01.jpg: +1 4. Norcem Brevik fra sjøen.JPG: +0 => File:06 Contes cimenterie.jpg: Declined. File:Schelklingen 1288.jpg: Promoted. File:Slemmestad siloer01.jpg: Declined. File:Norcem Brevik fra sjøen.JPG: Declined. --George Chernilevsky talk 10:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

The Byzantine Tower of Ouranopolis

View opposition Nominated by: MrPanyGoff on 2011-03-08 22:07 (UTC) Scope: The Byzantine Tower of Ouranopolis Reason: The major landmark of Ouranopolis - the last settlement before the border with the monastic state of the Holy Mountain -- MrPanyGoff  Oppose This is better File:TheTower-Ouranopolis-Athos-Greece.jpg --Mile (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2011 (UTC) We can open a MVR but are you sure which one should compete, the image that you mention above or the same but revised one?--MrPanyGoff 15:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Is good also. --Mile (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Scores: 1. ByzantineTower Ouranopolis2.jpg: -1 2. TheTower-Ouranopolis-Athos-Greece-revised.jpg: +2 => File:ByzantineTower Ouranopolis2.jpg: Declined. File:TheTower-Ouranopolis-Athos-Greece-revised.jpg: Promoted. --MrPanyGoff 22:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: MrPanyGoff on 2011-03-11 20:35 (UTC) Scope: The Byzantine Tower of Ouranopolis Reason: Per Mile choice. -- MrPanyGoff  Support --Mile (talk) 10:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)  Support agree--Jebulon (talk) 00:46, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Scores: 1. ByzantineTower Ouranopolis2.jpg: -1 2. TheTower-Ouranopolis-Athos-Greece-revised.jpg: +2 => File:ByzantineTower Ouranopolis2.jpg: Declined. File:TheTower-Ouranopolis-Athos-Greece-revised.jpg: Promoted. --MrPanyGoff 22:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Tripoli

View opposition Nominated by: Mile (talk) on 2011-03-12 23:18 (UTC) Scope: Tripoli Reason: Spectacular shot, sandstorm, typical architecture. -- Mile (talk)  Comment - Very ambitious scope. What about this one?--MrPanyGoff 08:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Not even close ;)...tilted anyway, dont like the sky, This one is Africa as it should be - colors. Nominated photo is on some 30-40 pages. With reason. --Mile (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2011 (UTC) Scores: 1. Tripoli cityscape.jpg: +0 2. Tripoli Skyline edit.jpg: +1 => File:Tripoli cityscape.jpg: Declined. File:Tripoli Skyline edit.jpg: Promoted. --MrPanyGoff 07:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: MrPanyGoff on 2011-03-13 17:42 (UTC) Scope: Tripoli Reason: Broader view of the city towards the downtown skyscrapers. Clear, sunny and detailed look of the buildings. Tilt is corrected. -- MrPanyGoff  Oppose Very bad photo, lack of composition, quality (iPhone users !)...couldt vote to represent town such Tripoli. --Mile (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)  Comment As nominator of an alternative candidate, You can only comment, not voting -- George Chernilevsky talk 10:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)  Support I agree with the nominator. It meets criterion 3. The sky is overexposed on the right in File:Tripoli_cityscape.jpg with about 100,000 pixels saturated in the red channel. No detail remains. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC) Scores: 1. Tripoli cityscape.jpg: +0 2. Tripoli Skyline edit.jpg: +1 => File:Tripoli cityscape.jpg: Declined. File:Tripoli Skyline edit.jpg: Promoted. --MrPanyGoff 07:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Leiria Castle, Portugal

View Nominated by: Alvesgaspar (talk) on 2011-03-15 13:04 (UTC) Scope: Leiria Castle, Portugal  Comment It is somehow blurry and in the background ;) It should compete in a MVR... I think also that you forgot to put a geotag ;) --MrPanyGoff 21:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Oops, sorry! As for the quality issues, all I had at the time was a mobile phone... Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC) Scores: 1. Leiria February 2011-1a.jpg: +0 2. CASTELO DE LEIRIA.jpg: +0 => File:Leiria February 2011-1a.jpg: Undecided. File:CASTELO DE LEIRIA.jpg: Undecided. --George Chernilevsky talk 11:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View Nominated by: MrPanyGoff on 2011-03-16 08:07 (UTC) Scope: Leiria Castle, Portugal Scores: 1. Leiria February 2011-1a.jpg: +0 2. CASTELO DE LEIRIA.jpg: +0 => File:Leiria February 2011-1a.jpg: Undecided. File:CASTELO DE LEIRIA.jpg: Undecided. --George Chernilevsky talk 11:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Ajanta Caves

View Nominated by: sfu (talk) on 2011-03-06 22:36 (UTC) Scope: Ajanta Caves  Comment - It is a great site and good panoramic view but for me this image gives more informative idea of the subject.--MrPanyGoff 07:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC) Scores: 1. Ajanta caves panorama 2010.jpg: +0 2. Ajanta viewpoint.jpg: +0 => File:Ajanta caves panorama 2010.jpg: Undecided. File:Ajanta viewpoint.jpg: Undecided. --George Chernilevsky talk 11:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View Nominated by: MrPanyGoff on 2011-03-10 10:40 (UTC) Scope: Ajanta Caves Reason: I think this photo gives more illustrative view of the actual site. -- MrPanyGoff Scores: 1. Ajanta caves panorama 2010.jpg: +0 2. Ajanta viewpoint.jpg: +0 => File:Ajanta caves panorama 2010.jpg: Undecided. File:Ajanta viewpoint.jpg: Undecided. --George Chernilevsky talk 11:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Skylark (Alauda arvensis)

View promotion Nominated by: Matthew Proctor (talk) on 2011-03-06 05:09 (UTC) Scope: Skylark (Alauda arvensis) Reason: I believe this picture is of higher quality and is just as illustrative as the current VI -- Matthew Proctor (talk)  Support I think so --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:04, 13 March 2011 (UTC)  Support I agree with the nominator. At f/8, the depth of field is such that the subject stands out from the blurred background. A species of meadows, it is well-depicted in its natural milieu. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC) Scores: 1. Skylark 2, Lake District, England - June 2009.jpg: +2 2. Alauda arvensis 2.jpg: +1 (current VI within same scope) <-- => File:Skylark 2, Lake District, England - June 2009.jpg: Promoted. File:Alauda arvensis 2.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- --George Chernilevsky talk 20:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: oskila (talk) on 2008-09-15 10:13 (UTC) Scope: Skylark (Alauda arvensis). Used in: 60 pages in 38 projects (basically, too many to list)  Info -- This is the present VI, challenged by the other pictures in the MVR. See previous reviews. Please add new comments and votes below.  Support I prefer this one because of the better contrast to the background. It is easyer to see, where the bird ends. -- Kersti (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2011 (UTC) Scores: 1. Skylark 2, Lake District, England - June 2009.jpg: +2 2. Alauda arvensis 2.jpg: +1 (current VI within same scope) <-- => File:Skylark 2, Lake District, England - June 2009.jpg: Promoted. File:Alauda arvensis 2.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- --George Chernilevsky talk 20:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)