|
|
|
|
|
|
View promotion |
Nominated by:
Slaunger on 2008-06-01 00:02 (UTC) |
Scope:
Juan Carlos I of Spain |
Used in:
15 different content pages | |
Previous reviews
 Info Renomination of test promoted candidate. -- Slaunger 00:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Personally I prefer full body photos of persons rather than just portraits. But I must say that for the purpose og illustrating an infobox a smaller portrait fits better. And as a portrait of Juan Carlos I this is a rahter good one - especially when reminding how hard it can be to find free images of such persons. Furthermore I also think this bright version looks a bit better than the edited dark version. --EPO 16:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Info When voting, please remember to check the status and update if needed, as that controls the border colour. Thanks. --MichaelMaggs 20:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]
 Oppose Not geocoded. Should be easy to update as royal public lifes are very well documented. --Dereckson 14:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment IMO it is a non-place related shot/studio-like (it could be anywhere) and thus mitigated as mentioned explicitly for this criterion. I do not htink it adds much value where the portrait was taken. -- Slaunger 14:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Geocoding would obviously not be appropriate. --MichaelMaggs 16:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Definitely valuable. It shows an important and notable member of the Spanish royal family. This man has a wide influence so the scope of the VI should be one of Juan Carlos in particular rather than the whole Spanish royal family. The value of this photo alone is enough for Chavez to shut up! :-) [1] Freedom to share 19:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Satisfies all criteria. – flamurai 00:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Excellent shot. I don't see how geocoding is useful in this case. --Lerdsuwa 09:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose => Promoted.
Slaunger 19:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC) |
|
View promotion |
Nominated by:
Slaunger on 2008-06-01 00:04 (UTC) |
Scope:
mating among Common Frogs. |
Used in:
6 articles, 5 projects, including species. | |
Previous reviews
Info Renomination of test promoted candidate. -- Slaunger 00:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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). Sorry. 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. . --MichaelMaggs 13:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It's an excellent image, and the data that Geocoding would provide does not significantly add to the value. Adam Cuerden 00:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Geocoding is mandatory. Please vote according to the agreed criteria or you undermine the integrity of the project. Thanks. --MichaelMaggs 06:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it's geocoded now --08:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support All criteria fullfilled. I also updated the usedin field. --Dereckson 14:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support All ok now. --MichaelMaggs 16:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 3 support =>
Promoted. -- Slaunger 19:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC) |
|
View opposition |
Nominated by:
Gnangarra on 2008-01-12 ??:?? (UTC) |
Scope:
a particular heritage listed shed at Maddington Farm before its collapse |
Used in:
1 page |
- Info Heritage listed shed at Maddington Farm, collapsed mid 2007 due to site works of new residential developement. --Gnangarra
 Neutral
Result: 1 oppose -> Declined. -- Slaunger 23:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC) |
|
View promotion |
Nominated by:
Slaunger on 2008-06-01 00:09 (UTC) |
Scope:
Primitive water supply |
Used in:
Drinking water (en) | |
Previous reviews
Info Re-nomination of test promoted candidate. -- Slaunger 00:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support It satisfies all the criteria 1 to 6.--MichaelMaggs 15:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] Oppose Where is the proof that the scope is correct, i.o.w. that that source is unsafe?. -- Lycaon 18:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC) better scope. Lycaon 18:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply] Oppose Agree with Lycaon. To satisfy VIC4 in context of scope, the description needs to show why the source is unsafe. – flamurai 20:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment For me, it is pretty evident that the water source is unsafe. It is still water openly accesible for insects and parasites. Evidently the water is taken directly from the open source without any cleaning first. For me that is an unsafe water source. -- Slaunger 22:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Its turbidity and accessibility to birds and mammals are prima facie evidence that it is contaminated. "In Meatu district, Shinyanga region, Tanzania, water most often comes from open holes dug in the sand of dry riverbeds, and it is invariably contaminated."[2] Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 3 support =>
Promoted. -- Slaunger 19:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC) |
|
|
View opposition |
Nominated by:
che on 2008-01-15 ??:?? (UTC) |
Scope:
a childs abstraction of a pig |
Used in:
14 user pages |
- Comment A drawing of a pig that doesn't show anything and is used only on user pages. -- che
- Oppose ack nominator. -- Slaunger 14:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Shows the essence of a pig as observed by a child. --Foroa 19:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Question So, if I understand you right, you would say that this image could be relevant in relation to, e.g., w:Child art? I follow you on that point (had not thought about that aspect). I guess this would only apply if the image was created by a child, if it depicts "a pig as observed by a child"? In this case it seems like the image has been made by a student, cs:Wikipedista:Juan de Vojníkov. I am not knowledgeable in Chech, but at least that user seems not to be a child as judged from the users user page. -- Slaunger 23:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It does not matter who made it precisely, it is an abstraction as normally seen by a child. (Actually, by the look of the ears, I don't believe it is made by a little child, but I am not specialist). In many cases, encyclopedic illustrations gain on clarity and are made easier to understand if we can make good abstractions. Most people will appreciate pictures on a neutral background: this is a first level of abstraction. Abstraction is an important step in understanding. It is not necessarily for child work category; some of Picasso's works could be in the same category. --Foroa 07:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Can we be serious please, this is just a scribble. I can produce hundreds of those a day. Even abstraction should have quality before it becomes valuable. Lycaon 08:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If one publishes new images for the Rorschach inkblot test (See here for more), they might be very valuable. I can produce hundreds of those a day. In the domain of naive art, child language and psychology, I have seen no images, so this one is the best for me. Note that I supported this image as an example to show that we need to be open minded: a real expert in the domain, as with most very specialised domains, might have an opinion which is different with 98 % of the audience. --Foroa 11:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I can follow you with the point you are making about being more open-minded when reviewing VICs. To review a VIC one has to consider if this is valuable for Wikimedia projects, not whether the reviewer finds it valuable based on personal values and preferences. It is challenging for many users to set own preferences aside and think about community values. And we cannot expect that reviewers can always do this. Thus, there will be some variances in the opinions. Like in this case I reach a conclusion regarding this test nomination, which differs from yours, although I see your side of the coin as well. -- Slaunger 20:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- @Foroa: BTW, I'm a real specialist in pigs: I'm a zoologist! ('n echte zwinekenner) ;-)). Lycaon 21:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lycaon: Yes, in the zoological aspects of pigs, but (kidding aside) I think Foroa is after another aspect of the pig - different perceptions of pigs from a psychological POV. ;-) -- Slaunger 21:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- @Lycaon: I'm a real specialist in stress testing of systems, especially where people tend to make it a pig nest (zwynenest). And you certainly know that stress is one of the major problems with pigs and a cause of major economic damage ;-) VIC should be stress tested by more extreme or controversial examples, such as no-logo's, cartoons, erotic pictures, ... In this particular case, zoologists should be excluded as they approach the problem too much from their professional point of view. Unfortunately, I have not much time, but it would be interesting to insert a number of heavily debated controversial images that have been (almost) deleted. --Foroa 07:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- @Foroa. I agree that stress testing on more images covering more diverse subjects would be beneficial. We could add a single controversial one that has been almost deleted too. I do not think we should flood this test by such examples though as it could distract from actual stress testing into debating the controversial contents of the images. -- Slaunger 07:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. With controversial, I mean questioned value for the wiki, not ideological debates, although often, those aspects are mixed up. --Foroa 09:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC){{citation needed}}[reply]
- Oppose I think this is an adult drawing in the style of a child. The craftmanship is better than I would expect from a child given the unsophisticated depiction of the subject and the wobbly lines. I note especially that all the lines are closed and the high degree of symmetry of the head. I would be more likely to rate this drawing higher if I thought it was the work of a child because then it could be used to illustrate articles related to art and child perception and development. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:03, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose a joke?--Orlovic (talk) 12:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 5 oppose -> declined -- Slaunger 21:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC) |
|
View (withdrawn) |
Nominated by:
Slaunger on 2008-06-01 00:34 (UTC) |
Scope:
The Drawing in Carstens Borchgrevink hut at Cape Adare, Antarctica |
Used in:
w:Carstens Borchgrevink | |
Previous reviews
Info Renomination of test promoted VIC. -- Slaunger 00:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I am concernd about the exceptionally narrow scope here, and in my view it fails criterion 2: "Your chosen scope must be broad enough to be realistically useful to somebody who wishes to search the VI repository". Althought it is theoretically possible that someone might come looking for this very drawing, the same could be said for every other original drawing, and they can't all be VIs. --MichaelMaggs 07:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As a re-nominator I cannot vote, but I disagree on the conclusion of your review in this case Michael. The particular drawing here is made by a notable person (not known for his artistry) under unusual circumstances. The place is hard to get to (Antarctica) and it is used in an article in a way which for me seems relevant and in a manner which adds value and the creator has been kind enough to make it available under a free license. For me, this makes the cut on the relevance scale. -- Slaunger 11:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Maybe a suitable scope would be, "Folk art by Antarctic explorers"? – flamurai 22:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... I think the current scope is OK. The hut was a heritage building IMO, it has now been destroyed by penguin guano! That means the drawing is now lost, so we are lucky to have it documented. -- Slaunger 19:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I believe the cabin is now destroyed, so... Adam Cuerden 02:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The hut has not yet been destroyed and there is a plan to save it. I added references about that to the wikipedia article. /Daniel78 19:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Nomination withdrawn on request from the creator. I would appreciate if someone else will close this as declined and remove it from the list. -- Slaunger 15:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Withdrawn =>
Declined. --MichaelMaggs 07:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)--[reply]
|
| Can be closed as declined |
|
|
|
|
View |
Nominated by:
Mbz1 on 2008-03-02 03:45 (UTC) |
Scope:
Iceberg B15-D |
Used in:
w:Iceberg B-15 | |
Info I realize that the image quality is very bad. The weather was horrible to begin with. I'm surprised we were allowed to fly at all. Besides the nominated image is a digital picture of my old (bad) film print. I also realize that the image might be valuabale only to me (After all not every day one rides an iceberg). On the other hand the image shows how high the iceberg is compare to people and helicopter. I also hope that the image would make Wikipedia readers to read more about amazing B-15 icebergs. Thank you.--Mbz1 15:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Result: Withdrawn by nominator -> Declined -- Slaunger 23:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Declined -> undecided by the end of test review phase. -- Slaunger 20:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
| Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC) |
|
|
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg/Archive_of_previous_reviews){kind=link}
