We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
CommentsGood quality. If possible please add headings to your geocoding! --Dschwen 14:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
CommentsAnother great shot. We should be happy to have a skilled and well equipped photographer in this rather remote corner of the world. --Dschwen 14:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mikumi panorama.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.
★An image you created has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you created was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: The Kaaba.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Pancratium zeylanicum flower. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Comment According to en:Pancratium zeylanicum, this species is indigenous to India and the islands of the Indian Ocean. In Dar es Salaam, it would be an introduced species and that should be mentioned in the description, I think. If it was found in a flower garden, that should be mentioned, also. Walter Siegmund(talk) 00:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Dar es Salaam lies at the coast of the Indian Ocean. This flower was found growing without any human supervision. Muhammad 07:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment I agree with Walter Siegmund about the 'introduced species' part. It can be found pantropically but its original distribution is Tropical Asia. That should IMO be mentioned in the description. Introduced may also cover escapees that have established in the wild. Lycaon (talk) 09:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I have made some changes in the description. Can someone please check ad correct any errors? Muhammad 11:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Support Thanks for those changes. I edited the description a bit more. I think it satisfies all six criteria. Walter Siegmund(talk) 16:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Support All is fine now. Lycaon (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Result: 3 support =>
Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Tawaf. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
IMO, This image is the best tawaf image since it was taken close to the people and hence shows what actually goes on. Most of the aerial views miss this out. Muhammad 15:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Muhammad, am I missing something? I went to the image description here and looks like this image is already valued image at Commons.--Mbz1 (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
The scope is different this time around. MER-C (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, MER-C. I need to pay more atention before asking question.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:23, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Uluguru Mountains. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Support Satisfies all criteria. Interesting place. Nice to get photos from areas, where we normally do not see that many contributions. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support
=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Bergera koenigii (Curry Tree), flowers. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
Comment For plants I prefer to have the accepted latin name in the scope as this is also understandable in a mixed-language environment and more specific than the vernascular name, which at tymes can be ambiguous. (Do not think it is in this case though). I therefore suggest a scope change to Bergera koenigii (Curry Tree), flowers. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Done Modified scope. The specie is also known as Murraya koenigii. Should that be included as well? Muhammad 10:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Murraya koenigii is just a synonym. If we were to add all synonyms on all latin names, we would have very long scope names. For instance, I just had a VI promoted within the scope Loiseleuria procumbens (Alpine Azalea). Loiseleuria procumbens is the accepted name, but there are four known synonyms Azalea procumbens, Azalea procunbens, Chamaecistus procumbens, and Kalmia procumbens according to ITIS. If you are then wondering if of those non-accepted synonym names are redlinks, it is because they all redirect to Loiseleuria procumbens (quite frankly, I just made those redirects now, but that is the (best) way to handle synonyms). Also notice, that Murraya koenigii is already a redirect to Bergera koenigii. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Ah, I almost forgot we have a review ongoing here;-) Anyway, I think this is the best of the flower, and the scope is relavnt and other criteria are met as well. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 09:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Musa, flowers. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
Comment Nice photo illustrating the flower of a plant which is important for many people for human consumption. Best in class. I think you should create Category:Musa ×paradisiaca and associate the image to it. The Category:Banana category is a little too general (and overloaded) for me? -- Slaunger (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Done Created the category. Muhammad 12:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Support Looks ok to me. I would have used the singular in the scope though. --Eusebius (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
If I understood correctly, each of the yellow like objects in the image is a different flower. Hence the plural Muhammad 17:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, ok then. --Eusebius (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment Hybrids are not my speciality, but I think that there should not be a space character between the multiplication sign and the name in the scope, see Hybrid name. i.e., it should be Musa ×paradisiaca, flowers -- Slaunger (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)"
If you know what you're talking about (I'm not), no objection to a scope change. --Eusebius (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, I simply took the liberty of tweaking the scope into official notation, which is a slight deviation from normal scope change procedures. Tell me, if you object to this Mohammad, and I will undo it. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
No objection, thanks Muhammad 03:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Support satisfies all criteria. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:55, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Banana scope was more accurate for this very good picture because with just the flowers you can't make the difference between Musa acuminata, Musa ×paradisiaca or other cultivars. Overprecision kills precision. This picture is just the best picture of banana flowers --B.navez (talk) 18:39, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I think you have a valid point there. I would be willing to support a slightly wider scope covering banana flowers. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree that a banana scope would be accurate but I disagree that the current scope is not correct. I am not an expert in banana plants, but of the few varieties I have seen, all have the similar basic structure but they also have differences on the size of the flowers, thickness, length etc. IMO, this picture can thus represent both, the the general structure of the banana flowers and the specific Musa ×paradisiaca flowers. Muhammad 08:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't doubt this very one was from a plantain banana-tree for you know it. Of course there are marked physical differences among all banana cultivars, but classification remains complex and not so clear, with multiple supposed hybridation levels, polyploïdie and then somatic mutations. So even a specialist would not be able to say for sure just with these male flowers that they are from Musa x paradisiaca more than from a Musa acuminata cultivar. So, the picture can't be representative of such a woolly group as M. x paradisiaca. Either you give it for exactly the precise cultivar, either you give it for cultivated bananas. By the way this big bud is edible when cooked, and delicious. Do you eat them in Tanzania too ? --B.navez (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Scope changed from Musa ×paradisiaca, flower to Musa, flowerMuhammad 20:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
Ok, I see your argument. I have changed the scope. I don't know about other Tanzanians but I think its only the bananas that are eaten :) Muhammad 18:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Not exactly what expected, but accepted ;-) --B.navez (talk) 18:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment I have inserted the scope change template, please sign, Muhammad. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Confirm support with new scope. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Support OK with new scope. --Eusebius (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Result: 3 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 20:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Ocimum tenuiflorum, (Holy Basil) flowers.. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
Support Looks ok to me. --Eusebius (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 20:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
★An image you created has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you created was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Mikumi National Park.
review
Comment Nominated so that it can be compared to the original picture in MVR. --Eusebius (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
After much examination of the two picture, I believe the other one to be atrue representation of the colours. Muhammad 22:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Question In what manner do you, Mohammad, think this image illustrates the scope well? I see a dusty road, some trees and a landscape. Are there any characteristics in the images which are specific to the Mikumi National Park (as compared to other national parks)? I am not asking to be rude, I would just like to be enlightened such that I can provide a more qualified review. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Other National Parks have more green vegetation compared to this one. Also, at the midground, there are mountainous ranges, probably the Uluguru Mountains which surround the park together with the Udzungwa mountains which are a characteristic feature of the Mikumi National Park due to its geography. Muhammad 22:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Support This one is much better than the other one. Mr. Mario (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The creator of the image states above that the original is a more true representation of the colour at the scene. I think we should go for the most faithful representation, even if the colors are a more washed out. It seem like that is how it really looks. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment Since we have all agreed that one version of this image has value, what is left is to agree upon the one with most encyclopedic value. IMO as the author of the image, I support the original version as being the most accurate depiction. Muhammad 17:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - I prefer this one, as the washed-out colours of the original are probably the result of a slight overexposure. Anyway, the colours of this one were not directly manipulated, only the overall contrast was slightly adjusted. As for "the true representation of the colour at the scene", that is much less objective that it seems. Depends, among several other things, on the time of the day, the transparency of the atmosphere, the place of the sun relative to the camera and ... the eyes of the observer. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Mating millipedes. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
Comment Sexy :-) There is another one on Commons, I have to think about it. I happened to realize that we had both Category:Arthropods and Category:Arthropoda. I don't even know what to do about that, it is quite a mess there... --Eusebius (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - A gorgeous picture! I really prefer this one, as the whole mating creatures are depicted -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Support --Foroa (talk) 06:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 08:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Dar es Salaam city skyline. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
Support Satisfies all criteria. You have 360 pano as well but this one is best at illustrating the skyline in review size. I removed the Category:Tanzania category as that is over-categorization. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Question Why not limit the scope to "Dar es Salaam"? A pano in that manner illustrates well the city itself, I think. Additional remark, I think that the links within the scopes should be limited to the Commons project (why link to the English WP? This is somewhat oriented). --Eusebius (talk) 08:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Dar es Salaam is region with the capital of the region being Dar es Salaam city. This image only illustreates the city's skyline and not the region's. My 360 degree image of Dar es Salaam may be used under the Dar es Salaam scope. I link the scope to the en wiki as it is the most visited and most extensive of the wikis. For instance, somebody does not know where Dar es Salaam is. The person reads the scope and clicks on the link, taking him to a place where he understands what the image is about. Muhammad 16:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
About the link, it was only a remark and is not limited to this nomination. I didn't know that Dar es Salaam was a region as well, but then would you be against a scope like "Dar es Salaam city" (with the link if you feel like it)? --Eusebius (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
As for the embedded links to Wikipedia, English, I think it is OK, and in line with our decision to have English language scopes. We may later develop an internationalization framework which allows localization of the scope names to other languages. These can of course link to the local language Wikipedia or Commons, if there is no equivalent. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Neutral See question above --Eusebius (talk) 08:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Amphibian Vivisection. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
Oppose Nothing of specialized "Medical" athmosphere --Twdragon (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Question I don't understand what you mean by that. Frog vivisection is commonly used in an educational context, and I find it quite natural that it is not in a fancy medical environment. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment and Question I think the scope is fine, and I think the image illustrates the scope well. Although the scope does not relate to a specific species (and it shouldn't) I would still like to know what frog species it is. That is not stated on the image page. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:00, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment I also think you should add some more details on the image page concerning where and in what context the depicted vivisection is done. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Species name and other details added to the image page. The species name is as accurate as my teacher's info Muhammad 16:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Thank you. With these additions to the image page I am willing to support. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Support - I think this image satisfies all requirements and is of very high quality. (Is it just me, or can anyone else smell formaldehyde when looking at that picture? :)) J.smith (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Chloroform, actually, according to the image page. Formaldehyde is for preserving dead tissue isn't it? -- Slaunger (talk) 06:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, but my only experienced involved formaldehyde so thats what it reminds me of. --J.smith (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 15:59, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Muslim Scholar on a Mimbar. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
Info This is an edit of Image:Ammar Nakshawani on Mimbar.jpg, the current VI within the same scope. This MVR is setup to evaluate if the edit can be considered to be a more valuable illustration of the scope than the original. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment I see less details on this one in the dark parts, but it may be due to my screen settings, so I won't vote. --Eusebius (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Weak support I slightly prefer this edit as compared to the original VI for illustrating the scope at review size. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Insect Vivisection. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
Question I am not that familiar with vivisection on selected animals. Could you briefly explain what makes vivisection of a cockroach interesting for Wikimedia projects? Is vivisection of cockroaches used in education to learn about some specifics about the anatomy and fysiology of insects? What is it you learn about cockroaches by doing a vivisection as compared to dissection on a dead animal? And finally. Is the cockroach "dead" at this stage in the vivisection? Sorry for all the questions. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
In my part of the world, vivisection of different types of animals is carried out. It can be of frogs, mice, cockroaches. Since cockroaches are one of the most stable animals in terms of evolution, and since they have survived different stressful conditions and survived, their anatomy is studied; what makes them successful. Also their body processes are studied, how they excrete, reproduce, defend themselves, blood flow, etc. Killing the cockroach would destroy the structure and thus make it difficult to observe all of this, hence vivisection is carried out instead of the dissection on the dead animal. At this stage, if the tubular heart is not damaged, then the cockroach is alive but due to the chloroform it is not conscious and has not suffered. The subject is then properly disposed. I don't mind the questions at all. Muhammad 20:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, I have given this some thought. I suppose this particular cockroach species is chosen due to easy access and the fact that it is a very large insect (the largest Commons cockroach species) and thus easy to vivisect and study in an educational context. As I understand the purpose of this type of vivisection it is to study body processes in, for instance, insects. I do think a vivisection VI can be relevant in this topic area, but I am concerned that the current scope is too narrow. Like, I do not think it would be relevant to also have a vivisection VI of a grasshopper, a wasp or a bee, perhaps not even a spider. So one vivisection VI dealing with either the class of insects or the wider phylum of Arthropods seems more appropriate. I therefore suggest you widen the scope to Insect vivisection or Arthropod vivisection. With such a widened scope, I'd be willing to support. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
Arthropod will be too general IMO, so I have changed to insect. Muhammad 12:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Meets all criteria. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support
=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Excreted uric acid. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
Question Would this be in the same scope as this image? It is my thought that this scope is inappropriate for this image as this is only one particular way animals excrete uric acid. --J.smith (talk) 02:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
The image you provided illustrates urination from a cow, ie Excretion of Urea. So no, the scopes are different. Muhammad 18:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I was getting those two confused. J.smith (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Question About the scope: why not "excreted uric acid", since the picture is not about the action itself? --Eusebius (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Scope changed from Excretion of Uric Acid to Excreted uric acid --Muhammad 19:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
Support Meets all criteria. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support
=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Moringa oleifera flower. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
Info High resolution side shot of the flower.
Comment It looks ok to me, but I cannot see the picture in its category?? I don't understand why, can you see it here? --Eusebius (talk) 21:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Comment I think that problem has been resolved. It's showing for me now. J.smith (talk) 23:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, ok for me too. --Eusebius (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Support Satisfies all criteria. --Eusebius (talk) 05:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 06:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
