Commons:Closed most valued reviews/2020/03

Onoba aculeus, shell

View opposition Nominated by:  B.p. on 2013-02-14 17:24 (UTC) Scope: Onoba aculeus (Pointed cingula)  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Godot13 (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2013 (UTC) 1. Commons: Valued image candidates/Onoba aculeus.jpg: 0<-- 2. Commons: Valued image candidates/Onoba aculeus 01.jpg: +2 => 1. File: Onoba aculeus.jpg : Declined and demoted to VI-former.<-- 2. File:Onoba aculeus 01.jpg : Promoted Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2019-10-27 06:03 (UTC) Scope: Onoba aculeus (Pointed cingula), shell  Support --Llez (talk) 06:01, 12 December 2019 (UTC)  Support Charles (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC) 1. Commons: Valued image candidates/Onoba aculeus.jpg: 0 2. Commons: Valued image candidates/Onoba aculeus 01.jpg: +2<-- => 1. File: Onoba aculeus.jpg : Declined and demoted to VI-former. 2. File:Onoba aculeus 01.jpg : Promoted<-- Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Retable de la Sainte Parenté de Jésus (Colmar)

View opposition Nominated by: Gzen92 [discuter] on 2019-09-19 10:25 (UTC) Scope: Retable de la Sainte Parenté de Jésus (Colmar) : Retable de Sainte Parenté de Jésus (19th century)  Support - Better lighting, more context. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC) - Supporting vote crossed out per Archaeo's remarks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)  Support - better lighting --Arne (talk) 07:55, 24 December 2019 (UTC) 1. Commons: Valued image candidates/Collégiale Saint-Martin - intérieur - retable de la Sainte Parenté de Jésus avec starburst (Colmar).jpg: +1<-- 2. Commons: Valued image candidates/Colmar StMartin 114.JPG: +3 => 1. File:Collégiale Saint-Martin - intérieur - retable de la Sainte Parenté de Jésus avec starburst (Colmar).jpg : Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- 2. File: Colmar StMartin 114.JPG : Promoted Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Gzen92 [discuter] on 2018-01-11 12:10 (UTC) Scope: Retable de la Sainte Parenté de Jésus (Colmar) : Retable de Sainte Parenté de Jésus (19th century)  Comment We must add a geocoding. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)  Done Sorry, I forget regularly. Gzen92 [discuter] 07:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)  Oppose - Not quite as useful, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)  Support Is there a big action to withdraw awards here? On the new photo I am disturbed by the headlights, which light up my face. That's why I like the older picture better. And anyway: Why can not two very similar pictures be considered valuable? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 13:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)  Comment - Permitting more than one VI in the same scope would be a change in procedure. If you'd like to propose that, do so in an appropriate place and link the discussion here. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2019 (UTC)  Support. While the other candidate shows more of the subject and its environment, the lighting in this one is much less distracting and less "clinical". -- Veikk0.ma (talk) 10:37, 18 November 2019 (UTC)  Comment - I haven't changed my mind. What we want in a VI is clarity in the depiction of the subject. The other photo is better in that respect. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)  Support Better lighting that does not distort colors --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2020 (UTC)  Comment - Archaeodontosaurus, if you know that these colors are more accurate than the others, I will change my vote. Is the other photo too green? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)  Comment - I've crossed out my votes. I clearly lack the expertise to properly judge these photos, and I'm glad you have it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2020 (UTC) 1. Commons: Valued image candidates/Collégiale Saint-Martin - intérieur - retable de la Sainte Parenté de Jésus avec starburst (Colmar).jpg: +1 2. Commons: Valued image candidates/Colmar StMartin 114.JPG: +3<-- => 1. File:Collégiale Saint-Martin - intérieur - retable de la Sainte Parenté de Jésus avec starburst (Colmar).jpg : Declined and demoted to VI-former. 2. File: Colmar StMartin 114.JPG : Promoted<-- Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Fire-breasted flowerpecker

View promotion Nominated by: Nirmal Dulal (talk) on 2019-07-29 06:09 (UTC) Scope: Dicaeum ignipectus (Fire-breasted flowerpecker)  Support useful. What is Campaign:wlbirds please Nirmal Dulal? Charles (talk) 13:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC) Hi Charles this photo is from Wiki Loves Birds. :) --Nirmal Dulal (talk) 15:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)  Comment What a brilliant project Nirmal. I'm coming with my wife and cameras to Nepal 9-22 November this year. I will mail you! Charles (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC) Sure, I'll be happy to see you here brother. Regards - Nirmal Dulal (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)  Oppose - Not as good as the other photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC) - I was uncomfortable with some of the arguments, so I did a web search. Gray feathers seem to be a minority variant, but I do believe this photo is oversaturated, and the background is surely more distracting than the other photo. If we get a better photo with blue feathers, we can have a Most Valuable Review. For now, I'm going back to opposing this photo and supporting the other. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2020 (UTC)  Support The upperside of the birds is metallic blue --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)  Support Altogether more vibrant an image, with a more interesting background. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)  Comment A "more interesting background" is a negative for VI, not a positive. Charles (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2020 (UTC)  Comment That's your opinion. Mine differs. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:31, 11 March 2020 (UTC) I agree with him. Hear me out: The point of a VI is to represent a scope as clearly as possible. A distracting background decreases the clarity of the depiction of the subject. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC) I agree with the principle, but the point here is that I am not distracted by the background. Should all backgrounds be bland? I doubt it. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC) Not if they're integral to the scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC) 1. Commons: Valued image candidates/Dicaeum ignipectus Nepal by Krishna (cropped).jpg: +3<-- 2. Commons: Valued image candidates/Fire-breasted flowerpecker (Dicaeum ignipectus ignipectus) male Phulchowki.jpg: +1 => 1. File:Dicaeum ignipectus Nepal by Krishna (cropped).jpg : Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- 2. File: Fire-breasted flowerpecker (Dicaeum ignipectus ignipectus) male Phulchowki.jpg :promoted Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2019-11-28 13:42 (UTC) Scope: Dicaeum ignipectus ignipectus (Fire-breasted flowerpecker) male  Support - No contest. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC) - Vote crossed out because I don't know what the colors should look like. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)  Comment the colours of the existing FP are oversaturated Ikan Kekek Charles (talk) 11:39, 9 March 2020 (UTC)  Comment - Gotcha, but I lack the knowledge to judge that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)  Comment - Support reinstated for this gray-backed variant per my remarks on the other photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2020 (UTC) 1. Commons: Valued image candidates/Dicaeum ignipectus Nepal by Krishna (cropped).jpg: +3 2. Commons: Valued image candidates/Fire-breasted flowerpecker (Dicaeum ignipectus ignipectus) male Phulchowki.jpg: +1<-- => 1. File:Dicaeum ignipectus Nepal by Krishna (cropped).jpg : promoted 2. File: Fire-breasted flowerpecker (Dicaeum ignipectus ignipectus) male Phulchowki.jpg :Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)