Commons:Closed most valued reviews/2010/03

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

Closed most valued reviews/2010/03

Oedemera simplex[edit]

   
Beetle May 2009-4.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
Alvesgaspar (talk) on 2010-02-21 23:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Oedemera simplex
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Photo File:Beetle May 2008-1.jpg is better in terms of entomology --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This alternative is not geotagged. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The same author, the same insect and the same flower for two pictures, the geotagage should not be very difficult --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment They were taken one year apart; while it may be the same plant species, it is not the same blossom. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Beetle May 2009-4.jpg: -1
2. Beetle May 2008-1.jpg: +1
=>
File:Beetle May 2009-4.jpg: Declined.
File:Beetle May 2008-1.jpg: Promoted.
--George Chernilevsky talk 19:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Beetle May 2008-1.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
Alvesgaspar (talk) on 2010-02-27 23:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Oedemera simplex
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I really prefer the alternative because one can see the mouth pieces and the abdomen. But if the consensus decides otherwise... -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Should be discussed in a MVR, formally. --Myrabella (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Beetle May 2009-4.jpg: -1
2. Beetle May 2008-1.jpg: +1
=>
File:Beetle May 2009-4.jpg: Declined.
File:Beetle May 2008-1.jpg: Promoted.
--George Chernilevsky talk 19:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)

Qaqortoq[edit]

   
Qaqortoq 2008-10-28.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
Slaunger (talk) on 2010-03-05 12:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Qaqortoq
Reason:
Shows most of the town in rather good detail. Light is a little dull though (overcast in October). A competing image is IMO File:Qaqortoq2008.JPG, which has much better light, but shows less of the town. -- Slaunger (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good quality, Best in scope.The link between the two images is very original. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The location on the coast is characteristic fot the town, this image shows it. --Ikar.us (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Qaqortoq 2008-10-28.jpg: +2
2. Qaqortoq2008.JPG: +0 
=>
File:Qaqortoq 2008-10-28.jpg: Promoted.
File:Qaqortoq2008.JPG: Declined.
--George Chernilevsky talk 18:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Qaqortoq2008.JPG
View opposition
Nominated by:
Slaunger (talk) on 2010-03-05 12:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Qaqortoq
Reason:
Has much better light than the competing image File:Qaqortoq 2008-10-28.jpg, but it does not show as much of the town. -- Slaunger (talk)

Scores:

1. Qaqortoq 2008-10-28.jpg: +2
2. Qaqortoq2008.JPG: +0 
=>
File:Qaqortoq 2008-10-28.jpg: Promoted.
File:Qaqortoq2008.JPG: Declined.
--George Chernilevsky talk 18:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)

Acacia saligna[edit]

   
Acacia March 2008-1.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
Alvesgaspar (talk) on 2010-03-09 09:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Acacia saligna (flowers)
Scores: 
1. Acacia_March_2008-1.jpg: +1
2. Acacia_March_2008-2.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Acacia_March_2008-1.jpg: Promoted.
File:Acacia_March_2008-2.jpg: Declined
--George Chernilevsky talk 18:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Acacia March 2008-2.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
Alvesgaspar (talk) on 2010-03-08 14:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Acacia saligna (flowers)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For me the best in scope is : Acacia March 2008-1.jpg. Better lighting and better definition. The botanical details are here for more.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Acacia_March_2008-1.jpg: +1
2. Acacia_March_2008-2.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Acacia_March_2008-1.jpg: Promoted.
File:Acacia_March_2008-2.jpg: Declined
--George Chernilevsky talk 18:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)

Palais du Louvre[edit]

   
Louvre toits.JPG
View opposition
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2010-03-13 20:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Palais du Louvre
Reason:
Unique view of this monument. The photograph was taken from the "Tour Clovis" inside the "Lycée Henry IV". This tower is not open for public -- Jebulon (talk)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The main subject isn't very easily discernible at the review size, IMO ; moreover, the note in the file refers to another building. I propose a MVR with File:Louvre Paris from top edit cropped.jpg (derivative work of File:Louvre Paris from top.jpg. --Myrabella (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I know the experience. Getting access to such a viewpoint makes the photographer happy, but the outcome is often not as expected. --Ikar.us (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Ow ! How do you know that THIS outcome is not as expected ? Your commentary does not explain your opposition.--Jebulon (talk) 00:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentThe subject covers less than 10% of the image. Only fragments are visible, most is hidden behind trees and other houses. --Ikar.us (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think, the bottom part of the photo schold be cropped. --Kersti (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg CommentThis comment seems to be non relevant for a VIC. It is not a QIC, here.--Jebulon (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • "Et le combat cessa faute de combattants". Withdrawn by the nominator. Like the others.--Jebulon (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Louvre toits.JPG: +0
2. Louvre Paris from top edit cropped.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Louvre toits.JPG: Declined.
File:Louvre Paris from top edit cropped.jpg: Promoted.
--George Chernilevsky talk 17:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Louvre Paris from top edit cropped.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
Myrabella (talk) on 2010-03-16 20:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Palais du Louvre
Reason:
This overall view gives a better idea of this huge building, IMO. --Myrabella (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC) -- Myrabella (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Annotations naming the parts of the complex would complete description. --Ikar.us (talk) 23:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment First I would like to understand please the reasons of this support vote. Then, it seems to me that comparison is absolutely impossible between this two photographs, too different in my opinion. Maybe I was wrong with the chosen scope of the other view ? Why not a competition with: File:GD-FR-Paris-Le Louvre.jpg  ?----Jebulon (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It's not about finding two partners for a 1:1 competition. By suggesting the scope, you started a competition among dozens of images depicting the Louvre palace. This is for me the one that tells more about the palace than any other. How the building looks, how it is structured, how it is situated on the river... Among non-aerial views, I'd prefer File:Paris_047..jpg, which shows the complete yard-side facade and a modern addition. It' already the category title image. --Ikar.us (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Louvre toits.JPG: +0
2. Louvre Paris from top edit cropped.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Louvre toits.JPG: Declined.
File:Louvre Paris from top edit cropped.jpg: Promoted.
--George Chernilevsky talk 17:17, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)

Tower of Lozoya[edit]

   
Tower of Lozoya, Segovia.jpg
View
Nominated by:
Bgag (talk) on 2010-03-05 01:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Tower of Lozoya
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This one has very good light, showing many details of the tower. However, File:SegTorLozoya 20.8.2002.jpg gives better general impression of the tower and its settings. It's of poorer quality, but since appearance in small size is relevant here, I prefer the other one as VI. --Ikar.us (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Nominated it for QI. --Ikar.us (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I like this one better. Yann (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Tower of Lozoya, Segovia.jpg: 0 <--
2. SegTorLozoya 20.8.2002.jpg: 0
=>
File:Tower of Lozoya, Segovia.jpg: Undecided. <--
File:SegTorLozoya 20.8.2002.jpg: Undecided.
--Ikar.us (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
SegTorLozoya 20.8.2002.jpg
View
Nominated by:
Ikar.us (talk) on 2010-03-09 21:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Tower of Lozoya
Reason:
Shows the tower in its surroundings. -- Ikar.us (talk)

Scores:

1. Tower of Lozoya, Segovia.jpg: 0
2. SegTorLozoya 20.8.2002.jpg: 0 <--
=>
File:Tower of Lozoya, Segovia.jpg: Undecided.
File:SegTorLozoya 20.8.2002.jpg: Undecided. <--
--Ikar.us (talk) 22:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)

Russian Revival domes in Russia[edit]

   
Hram v Omsk.JPG
View promotion
Nominated by:
Mile on 19:09, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Scope:
Russian Revival domes in Russia
Reason:
It is only photo in that category with status of Feautered picture (or Quality image), biggest resolution and by far lowest noise. I think this remarkable Cathedral should be flagpic for that scope (I check one by one all of them). It's used on many Wikipedias. -- Mile
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Strange category. Nearly all members of Category:Churches in Russia have domes. And it is was in Category:Buildings in Russia. I'm afraid the word was a false friend to the creator.
  • File:Erloeserkathedrale.jpg has more domes. :) However, this image shows that they aren't all golden. And it shows some details. ru:File:Омский Успенский собор1.jpg shows the same church more objectively. I Symbol support vote.svg Support this. --Ikar.us (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment File:San Basilio Mosca.jpg, showing onion domes, is interesting too within this scope. --Myrabella (talk) 21:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment St. Basil's strikingly couloured and textured domes are the best known, but not the most common variant of Russian domes. That's why I refrained from suggesting it. --Ikar.us (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Myrabella 1st picture You give is badly croped, compostion underdone and noise high. However the second one is composition i would refer to in this scope. And its similar to my picture, but again badly croped, and monothone with red color. I saw many of them, and in Siberia they are most wonderfull (contrast, colors, build-up). So my scope is to be not for all church as much for top of it (i must put photo in that article You gave). en:File:Kazan_church.jpg from Siberia is good too, i even tried to fix it (bad crop, distortion), but its impossible due to small size and crop, otherwise picture is marvelous. So, its not just St. Basil. --Mile (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You are very quick attrubuting something "bad" that you don't like. The composition of this photo was obviouly based on lack of a wide angle lens. But that doesn't count for VI. --Ikar.us (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral, found an even better one. --Ikar.us (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I know for that Gorsky photo, but as I said my scope is more on onion domes. That one is nice considering church as whole, but quality just cant be compared. Prokudin-Gorskys pic domes are monothone, no contrast. Please consider the scope. I dont know if it is good to narrowing my scope to "Russian onion domes rooftop arhitecture" or something to be straigth. --Mile (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Scope changed from Domes in Russia (exterior) to Russian onion Domes (exterior) --Mile (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2010 (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".

  • Sorry, now I have to Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. In this view the tips of the onions aren'tvisible, so it can't illustrate onion domes. --Ikar.us (talk) 00:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry ikar.us i dont understand You, 3 nice onion of roof arent visible to You ? Dont You get the scope ? Its about Onion doomes exterior arhitecture, close shot must be. Please be free to put the better photo in the scope, or reconsider Your vote. --Mile (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
    • The view is too steep from below thew domes. They look exactly the same as plain spheroid domes with a cross on their top. What makes the onion an onion, isn't visible (except for the right one, but still not complete). --Ikar.us (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment about scope: the new scope proposed seems more suitable to me. Nevertheless, I think that a sub-scope (exterior) is not needed in that case. --Myrabella (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info about quality requirement: I haven't begun to check over Commons images within this new scope. However, I draw your attention to the fact that quality requirement isn'the same for VI as for QI or FP. For VI, see criterion 3: "For photographs, the quality achievable using the built-in camera in a modern mobile phone should normally be good enough. [...] Reasonable sharpness, lighting, composition, and angle of view ; [...] The image must look good on-screen at the review size (e.g. 480x360 pixels for a standard 4:3 landscape image)"— that's all. --Myrabella (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would say subdivision exterior is necessary, since You have interior shots which ilustrate art (drawings of icons and similar) while in this scope focus is on more on shape with richness of colors which bring up atmosphere of Onion domes. P.S. For instance, i cant be in scope with something like File:St_Isaacs_Dome_Russia.jpg --Mile (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I would agree with an "interior/exterior" sub-scopes for domes in general, but for this specific sort of dome? That's the question: are there specific elements making the inside of a onion dome recognizable among other kinds of domes? E.g. between image 1 and image 2, can we say at first sight which one is an onion dome and wich one is not, only looking at them? If such elements exist, the sub-scopes are useful; otherwise, "Russian onion domes" could be a suitable and sufficient scope IMO. --Myrabella (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I try to explain my opposition and specify what I require from an image for this scope.
    1. For the dome, it must be a real onion dome, i.e.
      1. the maximum diameter of the dome is bigger than the diameter of the tower, i.e. a significant part of the under hemisphere of the onion is present.
      2. the transition from convex to concave is at a relatevely low level, so that the onion tip is clearly present.
      3. Otherwise, it's rather a hemispherical dome with embellished junctions to tower and tip.
    2. For the image, the view must be nearly horicontal, so that the cross-section of the dome is projected in the image plane and is visible completely without distortion.
  • In this candidate, neither the church nor the image complies with my requirements. --Ikar.us (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good, You explained Your view, but if You cant bring appropriate picture for this scope You arent helpfull. This is not voting for QI. Simple, is this VI in the scope ? If not, which one is it ? --Mile (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Some specifications may ease the search. Is File:San_Basilio_Mosca.jpg complying with them? About the scope, I ask a question above. --Myrabella (talk) 15:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Myrabella does the searching... ;) Yes, while I objected St. Basil for domes in General, I support it for onion domes. --Ikar.us (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Myrabella, i saw that pic first time. In case it wouldnt be croped so badly (upper cut of tower), lowered noise and without shadow (second tower from left) this would be photo for VI. --Mile (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info If was to know if it was that kind of pictures that Ikar.us had specified. I have begun to sort images in the newly created Category:Onion domes in Russia (work in progress).--Myrabella (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC).
    • ✓ Done : I've supplemented Category:Onion domes in Russia. Nice tour, there is a marvellous variety of churches (and domes) in Russia ;-) The scope can be linked to this new category. --Myrabella (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • A suggestion: File:Moscow, St.George in Pskov Hill (2).jpg is the most appealing I've found yet. --Ikar.us (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I've noticed too: File:Пятиглавая.jpg - File:Onion doomes of Cathedral of the Annunciation.JPG - File:All Saints Church in Krasnoe Selo 15.jpg - File:Onion domes of Cerkov Mihaila Arhangela.JPG (some nice brand-new ones :-). --Myrabella (talk) 09:10, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Good work, since first one is in the trees and 2 among them are mine, they were uploaded on Serbian Wiki for some time (months), I just didnt put them on Commons, so I did it now. but I still wouldnt contest them with my nominee. --Mile (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)¸
    • I saw who is the author ;-). By the way, why wouldn't you consider File:Onion doomes of Cathedral of the Annunciation.JPG as a challenger ? It is valuable within the scope, and it depicts more clearly the onion shape than the nominated image. --Myrabella (talk) 10:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I migth do so, if You insist so much on well shaped onions, as Ikar.us does. I will also reconsider scope for this. I am sure it worth VI, after all it was picked up in Travell article for Russia. --Mile (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
      • To illustrate an "Onion domes" scope, a VI should preferably show well shaped onions, effectively :-) But your idea is good indeed (perhaps "Russian Revival domes" for this quite fine image?). That makes not one, but two potential VIs. --Myrabella (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Scope changed from Russian onion Domes (exterior) to Russian Revival domes in Russia --Mile (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2010 (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".

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Difficult. Firstly, I know very few about Russian Revival style. However the Dormition Cathedral in Omsk had been built in the Russian Revival style, see en:Omsk#Culture and Points of Interest. Secondly, it seems that File:Омский Успенский собор1.jpg could be a new challenger within the scope. I tend to prefer the nominated image because I would say that it illustrates some tendencies of the style in a more close-up view, like decorative motifs, use of stucco (I'm not sure is the case here) and bricks, research of traditionnal shapes and adornments (after a too much quick look in this reference). To me is the most valuable of its category, even if this church has been demolished then rebuilt in the 2000s. --Myrabella (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Is the previous oppose maintened? (after a scope change, "an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".) --Myrabella (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral No, it isn't. No more onions required. --Ikar.us (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Scores:

1. File:Hram v Omsk.JPG: +1 <--
2. Prokudin-Gorskii-09.jpg: 0
=>
File:Hram v Omsk.JPG: Promoted. <--
File:Prokudin-Gorskii-09.jpg: Declined.
--Ikar.us (talk) 10:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Prokudin-Gorskii-09.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
Ikar.us (talk) on 2010-03-19 23:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Russian onion Domes (exterior)
Reason:
A pre-sovjet colour photo full of domes. -- Ikar.us (talk)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I've fixed the scope according to the title of the MVR and the status (discussed—it's a MVR). But even with the previous scope, I would oppose, because there are many domes in the picture, but they are are too far away to be considered as its main subject. The image fails criterion 3 to me. --Myrabella (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting delete.svg Doesn't fit in the new scope. --Ikar.us (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Scores:

1. File:Hram v Omsk.JPG: +1
2. Prokudin-Gorskii-09.jpg: 0 <--
=>
File:Hram v Omsk.JPG: Promoted.
File:Prokudin-Gorskii-09.jpg: Declined. <--
--Ikar.us (talk) 10:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)