Commons:Closed most valued reviews/2009/10

Brachypelma auratum

View opposition Nominated by: George Chernilevsky (talk) on 2009-09-09 15:01 (UTC) Scope: Brachypelma auratum Used in: de:Brachypelma auratum, de:Vogelspinnen, nl:Gevlamde roodknievogelspin, pl:Brachypelma auratum, pt:Brachypelma auratum Reason: Very rare spider. It is protected by the law (catching in the nature is forbidden). Photo in good quality, (QI and FI) probally best in category. Only my uploads in scope showing this animal. -- George Chernilevsky (talk)  Oppose Actually, you've made yourself a multiple strong competitor. It's really hard to choose one of those almost identical images as the best one - "Weniger wäre mehr gewesen."  :-) But if I am to choose a single picture, I'd rather go with File:Brachypelma auratum 2009 G09.jpg - same sharpness, but better colors and you can see more of the spider's front. -- H005 (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC) In my opinion this nomination is better, because softer contrast better shows details (and this show voting result in FP nominations) --George Chernilevsky (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)  Oppose - Cute spider. However, not geocoded. --Rastaman3000 (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Geocode are not relevant. In rules: Exceptions include: studio and other non-place-related shots. It is in description. --George Chernilevsky (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)  Support - indeed, this is a studio-shot. In my opinion this image is better than the second one. Rastaman3000 (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)  Info Ok, I withdraw this nomination and move my vote to other variant -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)  I withdraw my nomination -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Scores: 1. Brachypelma auratum 2009 G03.jpg: 0 (withdrawn) 2. Brachypelma auratum 2009 G09.jpg: +3 => File:Brachypelma auratum 2009 G03.jpg: Declined. File:Brachypelma auratum 2009 G09.jpg: Promoted. --Eusebius (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: H005 (talk) on 2009-09-10 16:12 (UTC) Scope: Brachypelma auratum  Oppose - Cute spider. However, not geocoded. --Rastaman3000 (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC) - Second image is better IMO --Rastaman3000 (talk) 17:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC) Geocode are not relevant. In rules: Exceptions include: studio and other non-place-related shots. It is in description. --George Chernilevsky (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)  Support I follow H005. Lycaon (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)  Support I prefere this shot, because the head is better visible --Cesco77 (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)  Support As above; also shows both pedipalps well. Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)  Support and thank to all -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC) Scores: 1. Brachypelma auratum 2009 G03.jpg: 0 (withdrawn) 2. Brachypelma auratum 2009 G09.jpg: +3 => File:Brachypelma auratum 2009 G03.jpg: Declined. File:Brachypelma auratum 2009 G09.jpg: Promoted. --Eusebius (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Declined - Wrong ID -- George Chernilevsky talk 12:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Basiliscus plumifrons (Plumed basilisk)

View promotion Nominated by: Lycaon (talk) on 2009-09-16 12:34 (UTC) Scope: Basiliscus plumifrons (Plumed basilisk) Used in: en:Plumed basilisk, es:Basiliscus plumifrons nl:Groene basilisk Reason: Shows the whole animal in ts natural environment (here at Caño Negro in Costa Rica). -- Lycaon (talk)  Support Meet all criteria for a VI, tail not damaged --George Chernilevsky (talk) 11:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)  Support I agree with Lycaon and Chernilevsky --Cesco77 (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Scores: 1. Basiliscus plumifrons (Caño Negro).jpg: +2 2. Basiliscus plumifrons (Costa Rica).jpg: 0 => File:Basiliscus plumifrons (Caño Negro).jpg: Promoted. File:Basiliscus plumifrons (Costa Rica).jpg: Declined. --Eusebius (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: H005 (talk) on 2009-09-16 17:02 (UTC) Scope: Basiliscus plumifrons (Plumed basilisk) Reason: IMHO this picture shows the animal in more detail and illustrates its mimicry capabiliies. Just the cropped tail is a pity. -- H005 (talk)  Comment You may be correct. I didn't nominate this image because of the regenerating tail. The picture was taken on the banks of the river Puerto Viejo. Lycaon (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC) I agree with Lycaon damaged tail prevent me to support. So I  weak oppose. It is very nice and very rare photo, but it is not the most illustrative in scope, because non-damaged animal showing other variant --George Chernilevsky (talk) 11:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)  Support I disagree. Regrowing its tail is a special capability of some lizards, and not something any animal can do. So if a photo shows the basilisk doing that, it gains value, rather than losing it. -- JovanCormac 07:13, 19 September 2009 (UTC) Scores: 1. Basiliscus plumifrons (Caño Negro).jpg: +2 2. Basiliscus plumifrons (Costa Rica).jpg: 0 => File:Basiliscus plumifrons (Caño Negro).jpg: Promoted. File:Basiliscus plumifrons (Costa Rica).jpg: Declined. --Eusebius (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Macaron

View Nominated by: Myrabella (talk) on 2009-09-21 06:29 (UTC) Scope: Macaron Used in: en:Macaron; fr:Macaron; ja:マカロン; zh:杏仁小圓餅; ko:마카롱; io:Makarono; fr:b:Livre_de_cuisine/Desserts/Macarons_Parisiens Reason: An image illustrating the "structure" of this pastry (two thin cookies and a cream between them) which may exist in various savours, and colours. -- Myrabella (talk)  Oppose Sorry, but I simply cannot believe that a macaron of this color has ever been served anywhere. It looks disgusting! Also, geocoding seems nonsensical here. -- JovanCormac 15:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Yes, it exists, its flavour is “Huile d’Olive & Vanille”, you can read a report in English on this blog (if you aren't too disgusted) and I may admit it is ultra snobish... --Myrabella (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC) Ok, you convinced me. It's hard to believe what people eat these days. I was sure that the specimen in the candidate picture was simply an "uncolored" one, not ready for consumption. But from the blog post you mentioned, it becomes clear that that is not the case, so I change my vote to  'Support'. -- JovanCormac 05:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Scores: 1. Macaron 1.jpg: +1 2. Macarons 001.jpg: +1 => File:Macaron 1.jpg: Undecided. File:Macarons 001.jpg: Undecided. --Eusebius (talk) 08:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View Nominated by: H005 on 2009-09-25 05:51 (UTC) Scope: Macaron Reason: I prefer this image over the other one because it shows that macarons are made in many different colours, not just green. -- H005  Support I agree with H005, some colour variants is far more illustrative -- George Chernilevsky (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)  Question This is an interesting debate. For such a topic, must we choose a singular piece or a pack ilustrating the diversity? In the different wikipedias, the article about "Macaron" begins by the definition of the item itself, as a singular piece. For exemple, in :en:w, "the macaron is a traditional French pastry, made of egg whites, almond powder, icing sugar and sugar."; in :nl:w : "Een bitterkoekje is een koekje dat bestaat uit een mengsel van gemalen bittere amandelen, kristalsuiker en eiwit."; in :fr.w: "Le macaron est un petit gâteau, etc.". It is why I incline to think that an image showing a lonely piece would be more valuable to illustrate the scope. --Myrabella (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC) Scores: 1. Macaron 1.jpg: +1 2. Macarons 001.jpg: +1 => File:Macaron 1.jpg: Undecided. File:Macarons 001.jpg: Undecided. --Eusebius (talk) 08:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Spiral staircase in the Vatican Museums

View opposition Nominated by: NormanB (talk) on 2009-09-15 12:19 (UTC) Scope: Spiral staircase in the Vatican Museums  Comment Even if the scope was acceptable (perhaps too narrow), File:VaticanMuseumStaircase.jpg would be a strong competitor. --Myrabella (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)  Question Would 'Stairs in the Vatican Museums' be a better scope?. -- NormanB (talk) 10:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)  Comment In fact, VI rules for buildings scopes don't offer so much possibilities for buildings - or parts of building. They say: "The building scope can be divided in a "XXX (exterior)" scope and a "XXX (interior)" scope". But they precise: "Additional scopes can exceptionally be proposed if some part of the building is particularly worth of interest". I think one can consider it's the case here. So let's keep the original scope. Within this scope, File:VaticanMuseumStaircase.jpg is better, IMO. Note: There is another spiral staircase in the Vatican Museums, the Bramante's one. It looks like that. I wasn't able to find any image of it in Commons (but I found some false attributions, e.g. in :fr:w...), . If you had a picture of it in your collection, it would be very valuable. --Myrabella (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC) I wish I had a picture of Bramantes stairs! I also noticed the lack of pictures of it on Commons. --NormanB (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)  Oppose Fails criterion 1 (“Is the most valuable illustration of its kind on Wikimedia Commons”) IMO, see comment above.--Myrabella (talk) 06:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)  Question Can you indicate why you feel that File:VaticanMuseumStaircase.jpg is better? IMO the technical quality of File:VaticanMuseumStaircase.jpg is less. Do you agree? If so, it is the composition that makes it better? -- NormanB (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)  Info On request I have uploaded an alternative version, which is more cropped. -- NormanB (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)  Comment Please set up an MVR. Lycaon (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)  Info MVR set-up as requested. -- NormanB (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)  Request May you add the third image in competition, File:VaticanMuseumStaircase.jpg? Thanks, --Myrabella (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)  Comment Already  Done. -- H005 (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC)  Oppose Both other proposals are superior IMHO, although it's hard to say which of the other two is best. -- H005 (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Scores: 1. Rome - Vatican Museum - Spiral Staircase by Giuseppe Momo - 0673.jpg: -2 2. Rome - Vatican Museum - Spiral Staircase by Giuseppe Momo - 0673 v2 cropped.jpg: 0 3. VaticanMuseumStaircase.jpg: +3 => File:Rome - Vatican Museum - Spiral Staircase by Giuseppe Momo - 0673.jpg: Declined. File:Rome - Vatican Museum - Spiral Staircase by Giuseppe Momo - 0673 v2 cropped.jpg: Declined. File:VaticanMuseumStaircase.jpg: Promoted. --Eusebius (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: NormanB (talk) on 2009-09-18 12:02 (UTC) Scope: Spiral staircase in the Vatican Museums Reason: Alternative version to Commons:Valued image candidates/Rome - Vatican Museum - Spiral Staircase by Giuseppe Momo - 0673.jpg -- NormanB (talk) Scores: 1. Rome - Vatican Museum - Spiral Staircase by Giuseppe Momo - 0673.jpg: -2 2. Rome - Vatican Museum - Spiral Staircase by Giuseppe Momo - 0673 v2 cropped.jpg: 0 3. VaticanMuseumStaircase.jpg: +3 => File:Rome - Vatican Museum - Spiral Staircase by Giuseppe Momo - 0673.jpg: Declined. File:Rome - Vatican Museum - Spiral Staircase by Giuseppe Momo - 0673 v2 cropped.jpg: Declined. File:VaticanMuseumStaircase.jpg: Promoted. --Eusebius (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View promotion Nominated by: H005 (talk) on 2009-09-18 12:26 (UTC) Scope: Spiral staircase in the Vatican Museums Used in: Various Wikipedia articles in almost 50(!) languages. Reason: All three images are very similar, really hard to pick one, but I want to throw this one into MVR too. It has less sharpness and more nosie, but otherwise the landscape crop (IMHO) looks better, the light is better and there are fewer people. -- H005 (talk) -- H005 (talk)  Support I think this one is better. Yann (talk) 12:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)  Support Me too, for two reasons: 1) its composition highlights the fact that it's a double spiral staircase: one can verify it following the handrails (more cropped in others images). 2) I find this compostion more harmonious, in line with the curves and volutes still used in art and architecture in that period. --Myrabella (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)  Support I agree --Cesco77 (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2009 (UTC) Scores: 1. Rome - Vatican Museum - Spiral Staircase by Giuseppe Momo - 0673.jpg: -2 2. Rome - Vatican Museum - Spiral Staircase by Giuseppe Momo - 0673 v2 cropped.jpg: 0 3. VaticanMuseumStaircase.jpg: +3 => File:Rome - Vatican Museum - Spiral Staircase by Giuseppe Momo - 0673.jpg: Declined. File:Rome - Vatican Museum - Spiral Staircase by Giuseppe Momo - 0673 v2 cropped.jpg: Declined. File:VaticanMuseumStaircase.jpg: Promoted. --Eusebius (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Mohandas K. Gandhi

View promotion Nominated by: Yann (talk) on 2009-10-02 23:23 (UTC) Scope: Mohandas K. Gandhi Reason: Best portrait we have, IMO. Location is unknown, so geocoding is irrelevant. Yann (talk) 23:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC) -- Yann (talk)  Support, as promised. Airwolf (talk) 23:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)  Support It is better variant for me -- George Chernilevsky talk 06:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)  Support I prefer this one too. --Myrabella (talk) 09:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC) Scores: 1. MKGandhi.jpg: +3 2. Gandhi spinning.jpg: 0 => File:MKGandhi.jpg: Promoted. File:Gandhi spinning.jpg: Declined. --Eusebius (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Yann (talk) on 2009-10-02 11:56 (UTC) Scope: Mohandas K. Gandhi Reason: We don't have a high quality portrait of Gandhi. So I thought that this image showing Gandhi spinning might very well be the most valued picture of Gandhi. The other alternative would be [1], but is not free for a very long time. Location is unknown, so geocoding is irrelevant. -- Yann (talk)  Question And how about File:Gandhi Juhu May1944.jpg? Airwolf (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC) He has a harsh look here, and the size is rather small. Yann (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Size should not be an issue. The criteria say: The image must look good on-screen at the review size [...] Its usability in printed format is not considered. Airwolf (talk) 13:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Well OK, but I don't like his look here. If I were to choose a portrait among what we have, I would take File:MKGandhi.jpg. Yann (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC) I like this one, I'd support it as a VIC for this scope. Airwolf (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Moved to MVR. Yann (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC) Scores: 1. MKGandhi.jpg: +3 2. Gandhi spinning.jpg: 0 => File:MKGandhi.jpg: Promoted. File:Gandhi spinning.jpg: Declined. --Eusebius (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)