Commons:Closed most valued reviews/2015/12

Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží[edit]

View
Nominated by: Daniel Holý (talk) on 2015-11-03 13:47 (UTC)
Scope: The nonexistent railway station in Hradec Králové, Czech republic. Built in 1857, 1871. Was found at the same place, what the present station Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží.
Used in: Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží (cs)
Scores: 1. Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží (1857 + 1873).JPG: 0 <-- 2. Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží 1893 (druhé nádraží).JPG: 0 3. Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží, 1893 (druhé nádraží) + D.JPG: 0 4. Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží, 1895 (panorama).PNG: 0 => File:Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží (1857 + 1873).JPG: Undecided. <-- File:Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží 1893 (druhé nádraží).JPG: Undecided. File:Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží, 1893 (druhé nádraží) + D.JPG: Undecided. File:Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží, 1895 (panorama).PNG: Undecided. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View
Nominated by: Daniel Holý (talk) on 2015-11-03 13:50 (UTC)
Scope: The nonexistent railway station in Hradec Králové, Czech republic. Built in 1893. Was found at the same place, what the present station Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží.
Used in: Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží (cs)
Scores: 1. Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží (1857 + 1873).JPG: 0 2. Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží 1893 (druhé nádraží).JPG: 0 <-- 3. Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží, 1893 (druhé nádraží) + D.JPG: 0 4. Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží, 1895 (panorama).PNG: 0 => File:Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží (1857 + 1873).JPG: Undecided. File:Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží 1893 (druhé nádraží).JPG: Undecided. <-- File:Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží, 1893 (druhé nádraží) + D.JPG: Undecided. File:Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží, 1895 (panorama).PNG: Undecided. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View
Nominated by: Daniel Holý (talk) on 2015-11-03 13:51 (UTC)
Scope: The nonexistent railway station in Hradec Králové, Czech republic. Built in 1893. Was found at the same place, what the present station Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží.
Used in: Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží (cs)
Scores: 1. Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží (1857 + 1873).JPG: 0 2. Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží 1893 (druhé nádraží).JPG: 0 3. Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží, 1893 (druhé nádraží) + D.JPG: 0 <-- 4. Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží, 1895 (panorama).PNG: 0 => File:Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží (1857 + 1873).JPG: Undecided. File:Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží 1893 (druhé nádraží).JPG: Undecided. File:Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží, 1893 (druhé nádraží) + D.JPG: Undecided. <-- File:Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží, 1895 (panorama).PNG: Undecided. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View
Nominated by: Daniel Holý (talk) on 2015-11-03 13:54 (UTC)
Scope: The nonexistent railway station in Hradec Králové, Czech republic, the end of the 1890s. Was found at the same place, what the present station Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží.
Used in: Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží (cs)
Scores: 1. Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží (1857 + 1873).JPG: 0 2. Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží 1893 (druhé nádraží).JPG: 0 3. Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží, 1893 (druhé nádraží) + D.JPG: 0 4. Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží, 1895 (panorama).PNG: 0 <-- => File:Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží (1857 + 1873).JPG: Undecided. File:Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží 1893 (druhé nádraží).JPG: Undecided. File:Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží, 1893 (druhé nádraží) + D.JPG: Undecided. File:Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží, 1895 (panorama).PNG: Undecided. <-- -- DeFacto (talk). 19:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Martin Milner[edit]

View
Nominated by: George Ho (talk) on 2015-11-09 07:47 (UTC)
Scope: Category:Martin Milner
Reason: Photo of Martin Milner in 1960. -- George Ho (talk)
Scores: 1. Martin Milner 1960 publicity photo.jpg: 0 <-- 2. Martin Milner 1975.JPG: 0 => File:Martin Milner 1960 publicity photo.jpg: Undecided. <-- File:Martin Milner 1975.JPG: Undecided. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View
Nominated by: George Ho (talk) on 2015-11-09 07:49 (UTC)
Scope: Category:Martin Milner
Reason: Photo of Martin Milner in 1975 -- George Ho (talk)
Scores: 1. Martin Milner 1960 publicity photo.jpg: 0 2. Martin Milner 1975.JPG: 0 <-- => File:Martin Milner 1960 publicity photo.jpg: Undecided. File:Martin Milner 1975.JPG: Undecided. <-- -- DeFacto (talk). 20:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Stenocereus pruinosus[edit]

View opposition
Nominated by: Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} on 2015-11-06 11:26 (UTC)
Scope: *Stenocereus pruinosus*
Comment: The page Commons:Valued image value says that "It is perfectly possible to oppose a nomination on the grounds that another Commons image is 'more valuable', even if that image could not itself be a VI candidate (eg because it is not geocoded). In this case this image is potentially better because it depicts a better specimen and shows the natural environment of the plant, but as it is not geocoded, it is not a suitable candidate. I have however identified an approximate geocode for the photo and have contacted the author, asking him to confirm my approximation. Martinvl (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment Moved to MVR section Scores: 1. Stenocereus pruinosus - 94.jpg: 0 <-- 2. Stenocereus pruinosus (5729863325).jpg: +1 => File:Stenocereus pruinosus - 94.jpg: Declined. <-- File:Stenocereus pruinosus (5729863325).jpg: Promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by: Martinvl (talk) on 2015-11-07 17:56 (UTC)
Scope: Category:Stenocereus pruinosus
Reason: I believe that this is a better image than the one proposed for a VI, so I am creating an MVR so that others can compare the two proposals. -- Martinvl (talk)
Support Much better. Charles (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Scores:[reply] 1. Stenocereus pruinosus - 94.jpg: 0 2. Stenocereus pruinosus (5729863325).jpg: +1 <-- => File:Stenocereus pruinosus - 94.jpg: Declined. File:Stenocereus pruinosus (5729863325).jpg: Promoted. <-- -- DeFacto (talk). 20:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Saint Isaac's Cathedral - Southern Facade[edit]

View promotion
Nominated by: Wolfgang Moroder (talk) on 2015-11-14 13:36 (UTC)
Scope: Saint Isaac's Cathedral - Southern Facade
Oppose there is already this image : File:Chrám ct. Izáka Dalmatského.jpg --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] MVR Nomination Comment: As per the MVR rules the correct procedure where an image already exists that is essentially the same as the VI nominee is to set up a MVR run-off between the two. I have therefore set up such a run-off. Martinvl (talk) 23:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment: @Moroder: , @Medium69: - Notifying interested parties. Comment This photo has been corrected for vertical perspective. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Support The statue on the roof on the left is full on this image. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Sorry I had not noticed. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 15:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 15:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Support This one is better. --Halavar (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Support Light and perspective are better. --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Scores: 1. Saint Isaacs cathedral Southern facade.jpg: +4 <-- 2. Chrám ct. Izáka Dalmatského.jpg: 0 (current VI within same scope) => File:Saint Isaacs cathedral Southern facade.jpg: Promoted. <-- File:Chrám ct. Izáka Dalmatského.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by: Ondřej Žváček (talk) on 2011-09-21 19:13 (UTC)
Scope: Saint Isaac's Cathedral (exterior)
Reason: In my humble opinion the best in scope fulfilling all of the valued image criteria. -- Ondřej Žváček (talk)
Comment See the syntax of the scope that I have changed. Support Scope very rich, but all crietria met. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply] `Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)`[reply] MVR nomination Comment: Another image has been proposed as a VI with effectively the same scope. In my view it is a worthy challenger so I am setting up a MVR between the two. Martinvl (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment: @Ondřej Žváček: , @Archaeodontosaurus: , @George Chernilevsky: - Notifying interested parties. Martinvl (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC) Scores:[reply] 1. Saint Isaacs cathedral Southern facade.jpg: +4 2. Chrám ct. Izáka Dalmatského.jpg: 0 (current VI within same scope) <-- => File:Saint Isaacs cathedral Southern facade.jpg: Promoted. File:Chrám ct. Izáka Dalmatského.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- -- DeFacto (talk). 22:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

White rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum)[edit]

View opposition
Nominated by: Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} on 2015-11-22 13:22 (UTC)
Scope: Ceratotherium simum simum (Southern white rhinoceros)
Oppose We have plenty of images of this species that were taken in a (semi-) natural environment → I'd strongly prefer one of those. --El Grafo (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment @El Grafo: ,@Medium69: Done - this and four other images have been grouped for a MVR run-off. Martinvl (talk) 20:09, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment: Moved to MVR review Previous votes are discarded Martinvl (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Scores: 1. Ceratotherium simum simum (Rhinocéros blanc du Sud) - 385.jpg: -1 <-- 2. White Rhinoceros1.jpg: +1 3. White Rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum) (11491982094).jpg: 0 4. White Rhino (Ceratotherium simum) (18081355260).jpg: 0 5. MPA White Rhino.jpg: 0 => File:Ceratotherium simum simum (Rhinocéros blanc du Sud) - 385.jpg: Declined. <-- File:White Rhinoceros1.jpg: Promoted. File:White Rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum) (11491982094).jpg: Declined. File:White Rhino (Ceratotherium simum) (18081355260).jpg: Declined. File:MPA White Rhino.jpg: Declined. --DeFacto (talk). 22:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by: Martinvl (talk) on 2015-11-23 12:13 (UTC)
Scope: Ceratotherium simum simum (Southern white rhinoceros)
Comment: This image shows the the wide mouth of the animal very clearly. The word "White" is a corruption of the word "wide". The German name "Breitmaulnashorn" retains the name "Broad" ("Breit..."). The vegetation in this picture is typical of the Karoo (a semidessert area) rather than Zululand where it was rescued from extinction. Martinvl (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Support After re-reading en:Rhinoceros#Characteristics and en:White_rhinoceros#Description, I've come the the conclusion that out of the current candidates this one shows characteristic features of this species best: two horns, hairy ears, broad mouth, humped back/neck, 3 toes. May not be from the original native range, but the species seems to occur the "in the wild" today, right? --El Grafo (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment I agree that this submission depicts the rhinoceros better than any of the other submissions, so I have investigated the habitat more carefully. I have certainly found a number of references to black rhino being found close to Cape Town in the mid-seventeenth century, but not the white rhino. If the white rhino is able to live in this nature reserve without human intervention, then I am open to the suggestion that prior to the Europeans settling in the Cape Province, its natural habitat included this area. PS, I am not a biologist as such, but many years ago I took part in a four-day escorted hike through the Umfolozi Game Park. Martinvl (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Scores: 1. Ceratotherium simum simum (Rhinocéros blanc du Sud) - 385.jpg: -1 2. White Rhinoceros1.jpg: +1 <-- 3. White Rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum) (11491982094).jpg: 0 4. White Rhino (Ceratotherium simum) (18081355260).jpg: 0 5. MPA White Rhino.jpg: 0 => File:Ceratotherium simum simum (Rhinocéros blanc du Sud) - 385.jpg: Declined. File:White Rhinoceros1.jpg: Promoted. <-- File:White Rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum) (11491982094).jpg: Declined. File:White Rhino (Ceratotherium simum) (18081355260).jpg: Declined. File:MPA White Rhino.jpg: Declined. --DeFacto (talk). 22:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by: Martinvl (talk) on 2015-11-23 12:14 (UTC)
Scope: Ceratotherium simum simum (Southern white rhinoceros)
Comment: The vegetation in this image is typical of the Kruger National Park after the rains have fallen. Martinvl (talk) 12:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC) Scores:[reply] 1. Ceratotherium simum simum (Rhinocéros blanc du Sud) - 385.jpg: -1 2. White Rhinoceros1.jpg: +1 3. White Rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum) (11491982094).jpg: 0 <-- 4. White Rhino (Ceratotherium simum) (18081355260).jpg: 0 5. MPA White Rhino.jpg: 0 => File:Ceratotherium simum simum (Rhinocéros blanc du Sud) - 385.jpg: Declined. File:White Rhinoceros1.jpg: Promoted. File:White Rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum) (11491982094).jpg: Declined. <-- File:White Rhino (Ceratotherium simum) (18081355260).jpg: Declined. File:MPA White Rhino.jpg: Declined. --DeFacto (talk). 22:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Commons:Valued image candidates/White Rhino (Ceratotherium simum) Ziwa Rhino Sanctuary.jpg

View opposition
Nominated by: Martinvl (talk) on 2015-11-23 12:21 (UTC)
Scope: Ceratotherium simum simum (Southern white rhinoceros)
Comment This image was taken in the area where this animal was saved from extinction. The vegetation (acacia trees) is typical of that area. Martinvl (talk) 12:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment vegetation-wise, this one seems to be the best choice, but you'll have difficulties making out some of the characteristic features of the species. Might be worth re-nominating this with a scope like … in natural habitat? --El Grafo (talk) 11:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Scores: 1. Ceratotherium simum simum (Rhinocéros blanc du Sud) - 385.jpg: -1 2. White Rhinoceros1.jpg: +1 3. White Rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum) (11491982094).jpg: 0 4. White Rhino (Ceratotherium simum) (18081355260).jpg: 0 5. MPA White Rhino.jpg: 0 <-- => File:Ceratotherium simum simum (Rhinocéros blanc du Sud) - 385.jpg: Declined. File:White Rhinoceros1.jpg: Promoted. File:White Rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum) (11491982094).jpg: Declined. File:White Rhino (Ceratotherium simum) (18081355260).jpg: Declined. File:MPA White Rhino.jpg: Declined. <-- --DeFacto (talk). 22:46, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Fritillaria latifolia[edit]

View opposition
Nominated by: KSK (talk) on 2015-11-29 21:18 (UTC)
Scope: Fritillaria latifolia.
Comment To this scope, the image is better: file:Fritillaria latifolia in Sochi.jpg @Archaeodontosaurus: Perhaps you are right. I had same doubts. Therefore I move nomination to the MVR section.--KSK (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment Moved to MVR section. --KSK (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Scores: 1. Fritillaria latifolia Willd.jpg: 0 <-- 2. Fritillaria latifolia in Sochi.jpg: +1 => File:Fritillaria latifolia Willd.jpg: Declined. <-- File:Fritillaria latifolia in Sochi.jpg: Promoted. --DeFacto (talk). 22:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by: KSK (talk) on 2015-12-01 08:23 (UTC)
Scope: Fritillaria latifolia.
Reason: On a photo it is visible where the Fritillaria latifolia grows in nature -- KSK (talk)
Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Scores:[reply] 1. Fritillaria latifolia Willd.jpg: 0 2. Fritillaria latifolia in Sochi.jpg: +1 <-- => File:Fritillaria latifolia Willd.jpg: Declined. File:Fritillaria latifolia in Sochi.jpg: Promoted. <-- --DeFacto (talk). 22:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Notre-Dame de Paris from the South or South-East[edit]

Please feel free to add further candidates if you beleive that they meet the general scope of the images shown below.

View
Nominated by: Martinvl (talk) on 2015-12-03 10:00 (UTC)
Scope: Notre-Dame de Paris from the South
Reason: I believe that this is a suitable candidate for the MVR "Notre-Dame de Paris from the South/South-East" -- Martinvl (talk)
Scores: 1. Notre Dame dalla Senna crop.jpg: 0 <-- 2. Notre-Dame Seine Pont.jpg: 0 3. Paris Notre-Dame Southeast View 01.JPG: 0 4. Notre-Dame de Paris, South view 20140131 1.jpg: 0 5. Paris Notre-Dame South View 01.JPG: 0 => File:Notre Dame dalla Senna crop.jpg: Undecided. <-- File:Notre-Dame Seine Pont.jpg: Undecided. File:Paris Notre-Dame Southeast View 01.JPG: Undecided. File:Notre-Dame de Paris, South view 20140131 1.jpg: Undecided. File:Paris Notre-Dame South View 01.JPG: Undecided. --DeFacto (talk). 22:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View
Nominated by: Martinvl (talk) on 2015-12-03 10:02 (UTC)
Scope: Notre-Dame de Paris from the South-East
Reason: I believe that this is a suitable candidate for the MVR "Notre-Dame de Paris from the South/South-East" -- Martinvl (talk)
Scores: 1. Notre Dame dalla Senna crop.jpg: 0 2. Notre-Dame Seine Pont.jpg: 0 <-- 3. Paris Notre-Dame Southeast View 01.JPG: 0 4. Notre-Dame de Paris, South view 20140131 1.jpg: 0 5. Paris Notre-Dame South View 01.JPG: 0 => File:Notre Dame dalla Senna crop.jpg: Undecided. File:Notre-Dame Seine Pont.jpg: Undecided. <-- File:Paris Notre-Dame Southeast View 01.JPG: Undecided. File:Notre-Dame de Paris, South view 20140131 1.jpg: Undecided. File:Paris Notre-Dame South View 01.JPG: Undecided. --DeFacto (talk). 22:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View
Nominated by: Uoaei1 (talk) on 2015-12-01 12:31 (UTC)
Scope: Notre-Dame de Paris from the Pont de l'Archevêché
Used in: de:Notre-Dame de Paris
Comment I would like to raise three points: The scope "... from the Pont de l'Archevêché" is too narrow - what about images taken a few metres away from the Quai de la Tournelle. I think that an appropriate scope would be "... from the South/South East". I have found some other images that are competitors to this image: Notre-Dame_de_Paris,_South_view_20140131_1 Notre_Dame_dalla_Senna_crop.jpg Notre-Dame_Seine_Pont.jpg I suggest therefore that these three images go into a MVR run-off. Does anybopdy want me to organise such an MVR (which will include getting the other two images into a VI-ready state (Geolocation, descriptions etc). Please note that we currently have no VIs of Notre Dame from the South or the South-East Martinvl (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment Thanks for your efforts, I would welcome such a competition. I have chosen the scope as it is directly related to a category, but I would support to change it to "from southeast". I would not include views from south, such as the 2nd image you found, and would handle them separately. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Moved to MVR Martinvl (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC) Scores:[reply] 1. Notre Dame dalla Senna crop.jpg: 0 2. Notre-Dame Seine Pont.jpg: 0 3. Paris Notre-Dame Southeast View 01.JPG: 0 <-- 4. Notre-Dame de Paris, South view 20140131 1.jpg: 0 5. Paris Notre-Dame South View 01.JPG: 0 => File:Notre Dame dalla Senna crop.jpg: Undecided. File:Notre-Dame Seine Pont.jpg: Undecided. File:Paris Notre-Dame Southeast View 01.JPG: Undecided. <-- File:Notre-Dame de Paris, South view 20140131 1.jpg: Undecided. File:Paris Notre-Dame South View 01.JPG: Undecided. --DeFacto (talk). 22:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View
Nominated by: Martinvl (talk) on 2015-12-12 13:41 (UTC)
Scope: Notre-Dame de Paris from the South-East
Reason: A few weeks ago I organised an MVR run-off between this and a number of other images of Notre Dame (I had no connection with any of the photographers). Nobody bothered to vote. I have now chosen this image that I believe to be the best from the point of view of a VI and am re-submitting it as a VI. I have chosen this image because the trees are bare and therefore hide fewer details of the cathedral. -- Martinvl (talk)
Previous reviews Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Oppose Must connect the scope to the category that contains the image --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Question@Archaeodontosaurus: I do not see any such statement on Commons:Valued image scope stating that the scope must like to a catagory that contains the image. If you read that page, you will see "You are encouraged to add relevant links in the scope ... Only the most specific part of the scope should be linked". In this case, the most specific part is "Notre-Dame de Paris". The section goes on to specifiy a hierarchy that should be searched. The hierarchy is: Commons gallery; Commons category; Article on the English Wikipedia; Article on another Wikipedia; Don't link In this case I linked to the Commons Gallery. At least one of the categories is descended from this gallery. Martinvl (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment Must connect the scope to the category that contains the image. Because: is useful, and it is a courtesy to the one to look for. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment@Archaeodontosaurus: A courtesy to who? If the user knows exactly what he is looking for, he will go straight to the relevant category. If he does not know exactly what he is looking for, then he will look for a picture that contains a VI. As an example, why did this writer choose the picture that she used? I suspect that she went to Category:SI units, pressed the "Good images" icon and selected and chose one of the images that came up. The only question to be asked is: why all the competitors follow this recommendation and why you do not follow. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Archaeodontosaurus: It appears to me that ignoring the rules in the VI project has become a cancer. If you read this posting, you will see that others who have similar misgivings about the VI project have just stopped participating. Please also read The Emperor's New Clothes or if you prefer Les Habits neufs de l'empereur and ask yourself why nobody else is willing to speak out. Martinvl (talk) 07:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] I agree that the rules say you should put gallery before category, but I also agree that it is much more helpful to link to the category, because the guidance is that every image should be categorised - there is no emphasis put on galleries. I personally do not put my images in the galleries and I'm not sure why we have both categories and galleries. It seems a wasteful and time-consuming duplication. So I have opened a discussion on the talk page. Charles (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Here the problem here is not the gallery, but the scope is wrong. The scope should point to the category that contains the image, not a generic category. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Martinvl: I think you are confusing Galleries and Categories. You linked your scope to category:Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris, which is a category, not a gallery as you claim - this is a gallery: Cathédrale Notre-Dame de Paris, I agree with Archaeodontosaurus that if you link to a category (as you did) that it should be to one as specific as possible, and not to the most general possible (as you did above). Doing so makes reviewing easier as you don't need to trawl through layers and layers of sub-categories. Which VI rule do you think has been ignored? DeFacto (talk). 19:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment@Martinvl: There is a category that exactly fits your scope: Category:Notre-Dame de Paris from the southeast. It would totally make sense to link that. I've made Category:Notre-Dame de Paris from the Pont de l'Archevêché (which contains the image) a sub-category of the south-east category, but I'm not quite sure if that view point wouldn't rather be more or less directly from the south … --El Grafo (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Result: 1 support, 1 oppose => undecided. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 14:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View
Nominated by: Uoaei1 (talk) on 2015-12-04 12:27 (UTC)
Scope: Notre-Dame de Paris from the South
Reason: One more candidate! -- Uoaei1 (talk)
Comment: This image appears to have been taken from a point directly opposite the western towers, yet the top of the towers are sloped. Martinvl (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Scores: 1. Notre Dame dalla Senna crop.jpg: 0 2. Notre-Dame Seine Pont.jpg: 0 3. Paris Notre-Dame Southeast View 01.JPG: 0 4. Notre-Dame de Paris, South view 20140131 1.jpg: 0 5. Paris Notre-Dame South View 01.JPG: 0 <-- => File:Notre Dame dalla Senna crop.jpg: Undecided. File:Notre-Dame Seine Pont.jpg: Undecided. File:Paris Notre-Dame Southeast View 01.JPG: Undecided. File:Notre-Dame de Paris, South view 20140131 1.jpg: Undecided. File:Paris Notre-Dame South View 01.JPG: Undecided. <-- --DeFacto (talk). 22:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Taxus baccata inflorescences.[edit]

View
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2013-03-05 13:08 (UTC)
Scope: Taxus baccata (European yew) male flowers
Support : beautiful and useful. --JLPC (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Godot13 (talk) 01:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply] Scores: 1. Taxus baccata MHNT flowers male.jpg: 0 <-- 2. Цветы тиса ягодного.jpg: 0 => File:Taxus baccata MHNT flowers male.jpg: Undecided. <-- File:Цветы тиса ягодного.jpg: Undecided. --DeFacto (talk). 22:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View
Nominated by: KSK (talk) on 2015-12-01 09:51 (UTC)
Scope: Taxus baccata inflorescences.
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 10:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Oppose Male flowers already have value image file:Taxus baccata MHNT flowers male.jpg --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment IMO it is different scope. In the nomination branches, leaves and inflorescences are visible. In value image only two small flowers and leaves are visible. Sorry. --KSK (talk) 08:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment I think that the two do cover the same scope and that a MVR run-off would be appropriate. . Martinvl (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Scores: 1. Taxus baccata MHNT flowers male.jpg: 0 2. Цветы тиса ягодного.jpg: 0 <-- => File:Taxus baccata MHNT flowers male.jpg: Undecided. File:Цветы тиса ягодного.jpg: Undecided. <-- --DeFacto (talk). 22:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Eiffel Tower from the SE[edit]

View
Nominated by: Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} on 2015-12-11 13:04 (UTC)
Scope: Eiffel Tower, facing southeast
Comment Please link to the correct category, there are a lot of pictures without cut-off base. --Llez (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Done I indicated the initial category. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 00:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] It lacks the lower part of the monument. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Oppose Feet are cut. Yann (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment: Moved to MVR (The VI submision entry will be removed from this page in 24 hours time. Please review the page here -- Martinvl (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Comment We should compare this picture with pictures from this category (like this, or this, or this, or...), not with pictures from another category. as it is done here --Llez (talk) 06:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Llez: If we read Most valued review we see "There must be at least two candidates competing within essentially the same scope* to open an MVR." This does not say that the scopes must be identical. If we read Valued image scope#Buildings, bullet 4 we see that it is recommended that there be only one VI nomination per building showing its external view. This suggests to me that if the VI rules are to be properly followed, then all images of the Eiffel Tower from whatever direction fall within the same scope. Using Google Earth, I found that the difference in bearing for the two images was about 1.5 degrees, meaning that both were taken from the South-East. To my way of thinking, this means that both nominations are "essentially the same scope". Martinvl (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Yes, but it depends also on distance and angle. The pictures from Champ de Mars are more comparable and we have there also better competitors. --Llez (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Llez: Why then does Valued image scope#Buildings, bullet 4 say that there shouLd only be one* VI that shows the exterior of a building? This means that all images of thE external view of a building should compete, regardless of angle or distance. Martinvl (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Martinvl: I don't read bullet 4 that way, as it never says there should only ever be one exterior scope. Quite the contrary in fact, it clearly says additional scopes may appropriate. DeFacto (talk). 12:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Scores: 1. Tour Eiffel - 20150801 13h30 (10609).jpg: 0 <-- 2. Paris, Eiffel Tower from the Tour Montparnasse, October 2010.jpg: -1 => File:Tour Eiffel - 20150801 13h30 (10609).jpg: Undecided. <-- File:Paris, Eiffel Tower from the Tour Montparnasse, October 2010.jpg: Undecided. --DeFacto (talk). 19:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View
Nominated by: Martinvl (talk) on 2015-12-12 16:00 (UTC)
Scope: Eiffel Tower from the southeast
Reason: A few weeks ago I suggested an MVR when a VI image of the EIffel Tower (height 300 metres) from the SE was submitted. In my view that image was distorted because it was taken from ground level from too close to the tower. I have now looked through most images of the Eiffel Tower from the SE and in my view this image, taken from the Tour Montparnasse, probably from a height of 210 metres from a distance of 2.7 km and probably using a 300 mm lens seems to me to be the best image in this scope. The only way that a better image from the SE (less perspective distortion) could be obtained would be from an aircraft (or balloon) using a 50 mm lens from about 500 metres. I tidied up the description and was able to add the coordinates from the category. -- Martinvl (talk)
Comment: Moved to MVR (The VI submission entry will be removed from this page in 24 hours time. Please review the page here -- Martinvl (talk) 16:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Oppose Not for this scope. I would support for Category:Eiffel Tower from the Tour Montparnasse. Yann (talk) 16:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Yann: If we read Most valued review we see "There must be at least two candidates competing within essentially the same scope* to open an MVR." This does not say that the scopes must be identical. If we read Valued image scope#Buildings, bullet 4 we see that it is recommended that there be only one VI nomination per building showing its external view. This suggests to me that if the VI rules are to be properly followed, then all images of the Eiffel Tower from whatever direction fall within the same scope. Using Google Earth, I found that the difference in bearing for the two images was about 1.5 degrees, meaning that both were taken from the South-East. To my way of thinking, this means that both nominations are "essentially the same scope". Martinvl (talk) 08:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] I agree with that, and it's not my reason for opposing. For this scope, I would expect an image taken from the ground, which would have a very different background. And this picture is not included in this category. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] @Martinvl: I don't read the guidelines that way, as it never says there should only ever be one* exterior scope. Quite the contrary in fact, it clearly says additional scopes may appropriate. And I agree with @Yann: that even if from approximately the same direction, a high-level view is not in the same scope as a ground-level view. DeFacto (talk). 12:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Scores: 1. Tour Eiffel - 20150801 13h30 (10609).jpg: 0 2. Paris, Eiffel Tower from the Tour Montparnasse, October 2010.jpg: -1 <-- => File:Tour Eiffel - 20150801 13h30 (10609).jpg: Undecided. File:Paris, Eiffel Tower from the Tour Montparnasse, October 2010.jpg: Undecided. <-- --DeFacto (talk). 19:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Union Buildings, South Africa[edit]

View
Nominated by: Martinvl (talk) on 2015-12-17 22:26 (UTC)
Scope: Category:Union Buildings, Pretoria, South Africa
Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Oppose, there are other images in which the statue isn't so dominant. Examples include this and this. DeFacto (talk). 10:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply] Scores: 1. Uniegebou.jpg: 0 <-- 2. 9 2 258 0067-Union Buildings-Meintjieskop-Pretoria05-s2.jpg: 0 => File:Uniegebou.jpg: Undecided. <-- File:9 2 258 0067-Union Buildings-Meintjieskop-Pretoria05-s2.jpg: Undecided. --DeFacto (talk). 14:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View
Nominated by: Martinvl (talk) on 2015-12-17 22:28 (UTC)
Scope: Category:Union Buildings, Pretoria, South Africa
Scores: 1. Uniegebou.jpg: 0 2. 9 2 258 0067-Union Buildings-Meintjieskop-Pretoria05-s2.jpg: 0 <-- => File:Uniegebou.jpg: Undecided. File:9 2 258 0067-Union Buildings-Meintjieskop-Pretoria05-s2.jpg: Undecided. <-- --DeFacto (talk). 14:31, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Commons:Closed most valued reviews/2015/12

Contents

Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží[edit]

Martin Milner[edit]

Stenocereus pruinosus[edit]

Saint Isaac's Cathedral - Southern Facade[edit]

White rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum)[edit]

Fritillaria latifolia[edit]

Notre-Dame de Paris from the South or South-East[edit]

Taxus baccata inflorescences.[edit]

Eiffel Tower from the SE[edit]

Union Buildings, South Africa[edit]

Navigation menu

Commons:Closed most valued reviews/2015/12

Hradec Králové hlavní nádraží[edit]

Martin Milner[edit]

Stenocereus pruinosus[edit]

Saint Isaac's Cathedral - Southern Facade[edit]

White rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum)[edit]

Fritillaria latifolia[edit]

Notre-Dame de Paris from the South or South-East[edit]

Taxus baccata inflorescences.[edit]

Eiffel Tower from the SE[edit]

Union Buildings, South Africa[edit]

Navigation menu

Search