Commons:Closed most valued reviews/2009/12

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Crematoria in concentration camps[edit]

   
Fale - Monaco - 162.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
Fale (talk) on 2009-11-18 16:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Crematoria in concentration camps
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request Scope should be changed to "Crematoria" instead of "Ovens" (most commonly used in cooking and pottery). Furthermore, I would suggest to widen the scope to "Crematoria in concentration camps". --Myrabella (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry for the 'bad scope'. I have changed it, thank you :) --Fale (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Thanks for having nominated that recent picture. However, I think that an historical image like File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H26996, KZ Dachau, Verbrennungsofen.jpg has a higher value for the scope, even if it will never get promoted to QI. There are several other strong candidates in the the related category IMO, e.g. this B&W image or File:Auschwitz Crematorium.JPG for a recent view. A "Most Valued Review" could be opened. --Myrabella (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
MVR scores: 
1. Fale - Monaco - 162.jpg: -1 <--
2. Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H26996, KZ Dachau, Verbrennungsofen.jpg: -1
3. Bones of anti-Nazi German women still are in the crematoriums in the German concentration camp at Weimar, Germany.jpg: +2 
4. Auschwitz Crematorium.JPG: +1
=>
File:Fale - Monaco - 162.jpg: Declined. <--
File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H26996, KZ Dachau, Verbrennungsofen.jpg: Declined.
File:Bones of anti-Nazi German women still are in the crematoriums in the German concentration camp at Weimar, Germany.jpg: Promoted.
File:Auschwitz Crematorium.JPG: Declined.
--Myrabella (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H26996, KZ Dachau, Verbrennungsofen.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
Myrabella (talk) on 2009-11-26 07:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Crematoria in concentration camps
Used in:
en:Dachau concentration camp, hu:Dachaui koncentrációs tábor
Reason:
To me, this period image has a higher value for the scope, even if it will never get promoted to QI. Note that it is dated from may-june 1945, according to Deutsches Bundesarchiv, i.e. after the liberation of the camp. -- Myrabella (talk)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I believe it's essential to show that these installations had more than one inlet to insert bodies. Wolf (talk) 10:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Judicious remark. Would you have any opinion on the others candidates presented in that MVR ? Plus: we could add that image to the MVR, in order to take account of your comment. --Myrabella (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

MVR scores:

1. Fale - Monaco - 162.jpg: -1
2. Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H26996, KZ Dachau, Verbrennungsofen.jpg: -1 <--
3. Bones of anti-Nazi German women still are in the crematoriums in the German concentration camp at Weimar, Germany.jpg: +2 
4. Auschwitz Crematorium.JPG: +1
=>
File:Fale - Monaco - 162.jpg: Declined.
File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H26996, KZ Dachau, Verbrennungsofen.jpg: Declined. <--
File:Bones of anti-Nazi German women still are in the crematoriums in the German concentration camp at Weimar, Germany.jpg: Promoted.
File:Auschwitz Crematorium.JPG: Declined.
--Myrabella (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Bones of anti-Nazi German women still are in the crematoriums in the German concentration camp at Weimar, Germany.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
Myrabella (talk) on 2009-11-26 07:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Crematoria in concentration camps
Used in:
en:German resistance, en:Nazi Germany, fr:Four crématoire, it:Genocidio, no:Tilintetgjørelsesleir, tr:Holokost, el:Ολοκαύτωμα, sk:Vojnové zločiny nacistického Nemecka počas druhej svetovej vojny
Reason:
A very stricking image within the scope, too. -- Myrabella (talk)

Symbol support vote.svg Support I know that there can be only one VI in a scope, but for me there are two in this MVR which have equal value, though due to slightly different reasons. I'll let someone else give the deciding vote(s). Wolf (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

MVR scores:

1. Fale - Monaco - 162.jpg: -1
2. Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H26996, KZ Dachau, Verbrennungsofen.jpg: -1
3. Bones of anti-Nazi German women still are in the crematoriums in the German concentration camp at Weimar, Germany.jpg: +2 <--
4. Auschwitz Crematorium.JPG: +1
=>
File:Fale - Monaco - 162.jpg: Declined.
File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H26996, KZ Dachau, Verbrennungsofen.jpg: Declined.
File:Bones of anti-Nazi German women still are in the crematoriums in the German concentration camp at Weimar, Germany.jpg: Promoted. <--
File:Auschwitz Crematorium.JPG: Declined.
--Myrabella (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Auschwitz Crematorium.JPG
View opposition
Nominated by:
Myrabella (talk) on 2009-11-26 07:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Crematoria in concentration camps
Used in:
de:KZ Auschwitz I (Stammlager)
Reason:
If a recent image was prefered, I'd tend to think that this one would well illustrate the scope. -- Myrabella (talk)

Symbol support vote.svg Support I know that there can be only one VI in a scope, but for me there are two in this MVR which have equal value, though due to slightly different reasons. I'll let someone else give the deciding vote(s). Wolf (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC) MVR scores:

1. Fale - Monaco - 162.jpg: -1
2. Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H26996, KZ Dachau, Verbrennungsofen.jpg: -1
3. Bones of anti-Nazi German women still are in the crematoriums in the German concentration camp at Weimar, Germany.jpg: +2 
4. Auschwitz Crematorium.JPG: +1 <--
=>
File:Fale - Monaco - 162.jpg: Declined.
File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H26996, KZ Dachau, Verbrennungsofen.jpg: Declined.
File:Bones of anti-Nazi German women still are in the crematoriums in the German concentration camp at Weimar, Germany.jpg: Promoted.
File:Auschwitz Crematorium.JPG: Declined. <--
--Myrabella (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)

Frankfurt am Main[edit]

   
Cityscape Frankfurt.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
Der Wolf im Wald (talk) on 20:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Scope:
Frankfurt am Main

Pictogram voting info.svg Info This image is the present VI, now rediscussed because there is a new challenger in a new MVR.

Please add new comments and votes below:

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The image notes on this picture still add value... --Myrabella (talk) 11:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
  • A few minutes ago, I added all notes in the other picture too;) -- Der Wolf (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
MVR Scores:
1. Cityscape Frankfurt 2010 panorama crop.jpg: +1
2. Cityscape Frankfurt.jpg: 0 (current VI within same scope) <--
=>
File:Cityscape Frankfurt 2010 panorama crop.jpg: Promoted.
File:Cityscape Frankfurt.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <--
--Myrabella (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Skyline Frankfurt.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
Myrabella (talk) on 2009-12-03 15:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Frankfurt am Main
Used in:
Hochhäuser in Frankfurt;en:List of tallest buildings in Frankfurt; de:Liste der Hochhäuser in Frankfurt am Main; de:Portal:Frankfurt Rhein-Main/Vitrine;
Reason:
The question is: for this scope, is it more relevant to show a full view of the visually prominent skyscraper zone of the city or to show the river? I tend to incline towards the second option: an image showing the river (it is Frankfurt am Main, after all :-), some "old" buildings (the town has a long history) and an evocation of "Mainhattan" (even only partially) could well epitomize the scope too. This alternative image is from the same author, Der Wolf im Wald. -- Myrabella (talk)

Scores:

1. Cityscape Frankfurt.jpg: +1
2. Skyline Frankfurt.jpg: 0
=>
File:Cityscape Frankfurt.jpg: Promoted.
File:Skyline Frankfurt.jpg: Declined.
--Eusebius (talk) 10:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)

Pit Stop in Formula One[edit]

   
Fale F1 Monza 2004 77.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
Fale (talk) on 2009-11-19 07:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Pit Stop in Formula One
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am not a specialist, but I would advance that the chosen scope seems too narrow. I would suggest to change it to "Pit stops in Formula One", with a link to the fitting category. New competitors may exist within that suggested widener scope—sportive spirit, indeed! --Myrabella (talk) 12:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, it wasn't an attempatative to remove the sportive spirit. The thing is that this is one of my first post in the VI section ;). Fale (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Scope changed from McLaren Pit Stop to Pit Stop in Formula One

  • 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".

VIC-scope-change template added by --Myrabella (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC).

  • Oh, my fault! I only tried to say that it would be sportive to change the scope even knowing that it could be more difficult. I am truly sorry for this misunderstanding. Thanks for the change; I hope that this new scope will attract some more reviewers :-) --Myrabella (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Probably I posted a 'too strong' answer, because I understood you were not pointing to a bad-faith act :). I hope too that in this way it will attract more reviewers :) Fale (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
PS: Sorry but I'm too tired and I'm writing with too many errors -.- Fale (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I hesitate with that one. More men in action, perhaps more illustrative (one can understand what is that distracting "fishing rod" across the nominated image) but I like the composition of yours. I'd set up a MVR if the "opponent" was geocoded (rather easy to do, I guess). --Myrabella (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Geotagged the photo. I think that this is the closest to reality values we can have for the geotag. Fale (talk) 19:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Let's try a MVR. --Myrabella (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Fale F1 Monza 2004 77.jpg: 0
2. Nick Heidfeld 2005 San Marino.jpg: 0
3. Fale F1 Monza 2004 73.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Fale F1 Monza 2004 77.jpg: Declined.
File:Nick Heidfeld 2005 San Marino.jpg: Declined.
File:Fale F1 Monza 2004 73.jpg: Promoted.
--Eusebius (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Nick Heidfeld 2005 San Marino.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
Myrabella (talk) on 2009-12-03 23:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Pit Stop in Formula One
Used in:
Nick Heidfeld, WilliamsF1, sl:Velika nagrada San Marina 2005
Reason:
Compared with the other picture nominated in the MVR, this image show more men in action, it is a bit more descriptive (one can understand here what is that distracting "fishing rod" across the other nominated image) but its composition is less dynamic, IMO. However, aesthetics is not of prime importance for a VI. --Myrabella (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC) -- Myrabella (talk)

Scores:

1. Fale F1 Monza 2004 77.jpg: 0
2. Nick Heidfeld 2005 San Marino.jpg: 0
3. Fale F1 Monza 2004 73.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Fale F1 Monza 2004 77.jpg: Declined.
File:Nick Heidfeld 2005 San Marino.jpg: Declined.
File:Fale F1 Monza 2004 73.jpg: Promoted.
--Eusebius (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Fale F1 Monza 2004 73.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
MattiPaavola (talk) on 2009-12-04 18:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Pit stop in Formula One
Reason:
I'd like to add this photo to the MVR because of two things: the changing of the tires is illustrated and the essential lollipop (the stop sign) is slightly more visible. Therefore, I think this has more value. -- MattiPaavola (talk)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm sorry for the unhappy crop :(. If it wasn't for that... I would have surely said that this is the best of the MVR... Fale (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Nevertheless, I prefer this one, because the actions (refuelling the car, changing tires) are more clearly depicted. --Myrabella (talk) 00:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Fale F1 Monza 2004 77.jpg: 0
2. Nick Heidfeld 2005 San Marino.jpg: 0
3. Fale F1 Monza 2004 73.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Fale F1 Monza 2004 77.jpg: Declined.
File:Nick Heidfeld 2005 San Marino.jpg: Declined.
File:Fale F1 Monza 2004 73.jpg: Promoted.
--Eusebius (talk) 10:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)

Drummond Castle[edit]

   
Drummond Castle & Gardens.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2009-12-06 21:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Drummond Castle
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This image is the only one on Commons showing the two parts of the castle (according to en:Drummond Castle, "the oldest part is a tower-house" (ruined then rebuilt); "a large mansion was added on the other side of the courtyard in the 1690s"). Its resolution is good enough for the review size asked for a VIC. --Myrabella (talk) 05:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
MVR Scores: 
1. Drummond Castle & Gardens.jpg: +1 <--
2. Drummond castle.jpg: 0
=>
File:Drummond Castle & Gardens.jpg: Promoted. <--
File:Drummond castle.jpg: Declined. 
--Myrabella (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Drummond castle edit.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2009-12-06 21:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Drummond Castle
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am really embarrassed because according to en:Drummond Castle, "the oldest part is a tower-house" (ruined then rebuilt); "a large mansion was added on the other side of the courtyard in the 1690s". The other image shows these both parts, plus the topiary garden, but in a low resolution. --Myrabella (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
    The resolution of the other picture is good enough for the review size. Images should normally not be considered at full resolution for VI. I nominated this picture because it shows the corps de logis better and in a front view, I nominated the other one because it showed both buildings (although in a side view). The gardens are indeed very specific to the castle, but they're, in my view, accessory to the building scope. I'm not sure they're vital to the VI. I guess my little speech doesn't help your review :-) --Eusebius (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC) 
  • Yes it does. In fact, it relieves my qualms. --Myrabella (talk) 05:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
MVR Scores: 
1. Drummond Castle & Gardens.jpg: +1 
2. Drummond castle.jpg: 0 <--
=>
File:Drummond Castle & Gardens.jpg: Promoted.
File:Drummond castle.jpg: Declined. <--
--Myrabella (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)

Fort National (Saint-Malo)[edit]

   
Fort-National-DSC 6293.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2009-12-13 10:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Fort National (Saint-Malo)
Used in:
Saint-Malo
Reason:
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Photograph by Pline. -- Eusebius (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I tend to prefer this image, because it clearly depicts the structure of the fort, and it is more informative about its topographic situation. --Myrabella (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I've added a candidate. --Eusebius (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Scores:
1. Fort-National-DSC 6293.jpg: +1 
2. Saint-Malo - Fort National.jpg: +0
3. Saint-Malo - le Fort National à marée basse.JPG: +0
=>
File:Fort-National-DSC 6293.jpg: Promoted.
File:Saint-Malo - Fort National.jpg: Declined.
File:Saint-Malo - le Fort National à marée basse.JPG: Declined.
--George Chernilevsky talk 16:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Saint-Malo - Fort National.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2009-12-13 10:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Fort National (Saint-Malo)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The image description could indicate that this view is at high tide, and the other at low tide (unless I'm wrong?).--Myrabella (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Exactly. Except that the tide is not "full" on this one, it is "almost" high tide. I don't have any preferences about this point, it can be valuable to show that it is an island or almost an island at high tide, and also valuable to show that it is accessible by foot at low tide. --Eusebius (talk) 06:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your explanation. I was only suggesting addind this information in the description on the image page itself :-) --Myrabella (talk) 09:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Hum, the timestamp of my previous comment is a key element of interpretation... I'll update image pages. --Eusebius (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for your adjuncts. It's time to review it, now! In this image, the light and shadows enhance the star-shape of the fortifications, but there are distracting elements (the green pipe, the big tent). Another point: as the scene takes place at high tide, one can't understand the situation of the fort island at first sight (close to the shore or miles away from it?). --Myrabella (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info I've added a candidate. --Eusebius (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Scores:
1. Fort-National-DSC 6293.jpg: +1 
2. Saint-Malo - Fort National.jpg: +0
3. Saint-Malo - le Fort National à marée basse.JPG: +0
=>
File:Fort-National-DSC 6293.jpg: Promoted.
File:Saint-Malo - Fort National.jpg: Declined.
File:Saint-Malo - le Fort National à marée basse.JPG: Declined.
--George Chernilevsky talk 16:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Saint-Malo - le Fort National à marée basse.JPG
View opposition
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2009-12-19 18:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Fort National (Saint-Malo)
Reason:
Ugly tent is still there, but it shows a nice little guerite which was invisible on the other pics :-) -- Eusebius (talk)

Scores:

1. Fort-National-DSC 6293.jpg: +1 
2. Saint-Malo - Fort National.jpg: +0
3. Saint-Malo - le Fort National à marée basse.JPG: +0
=>
File:Fort-National-DSC 6293.jpg: Promoted.
File:Saint-Malo - Fort National.jpg: Declined.
File:Saint-Malo - le Fort National à marée basse.JPG: Declined.
--George Chernilevsky talk 16:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)