Oppose Usual VISs contain few images, each of which is essential to illustrate the topic. Larger collections of aspects, which can't be assessed as complete or incomplete, are considered galleries, which may be valuable, but aren't sets as intended by VIS. --Ikar.us (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should have provided more information with this nomination. Let me tell you what I was considering when nominating these:
In the past six years only three (123) pictures of wild chimps got uploaded. The upload of this series increased the number of wildlife chimp pictures by a factor of 4.
Unlike dumb animals like birds the behaviour of zoo chimps is very different so pictures made there do not show high EV.
The series shows a complete daylife of chimps: Sleeping, eating fruits and meat, climbing, sitting on the floor (it was a mayor finding of Jane Goodal et al. that chimps spend most of the day on the floor), grooming, playing, males, females, babys and tenagers. The feeding station is of high EV because it played a mayor role in reaserch of chimp behavour. I honestly do not see many duplicates.
Imo an image gets more value the harder it is to get. In this case the images were very hard to get. Because the park being in an area of political instability (close elections in Burundi...) we had up to four armed guards with automatic guns on the way. The lighting condidtions made it impossible to shoot accurately with automatic exposure metering so I had to spot meter and manual adjust exposure.
To me nominating one of this pictures would not make sense. Which one to take? To me the value added to WP is by the set as a whole, which was the motivation for nominating these pictures. --Ikiwaner (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Du meinst, damit du nicht die Bilder anklicken musst, um dort die detaillierte Beschreibung in deiner Muttersprache zu lesen? Wenn ich diesen Kommentar lese kriege ich das Gefühl, dass es hier mehr ums Formulieren von Nominierungsseiten geht als um Bilder. --Ikiwaner (talk) 16:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
