Commons:Closed most valued reviews/2010/06

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

Phyllomedusa sauvagii[edit]

   
Phyllomedusa sauvagii.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
Jutta234 (talk) on 2010-05-21 23:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Phyllomedusa sauvagii (Waxy Monkey Frog)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Since the other images I mentioned were also taken at zoos, I suppose geocodes could be added. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Phyllomedusa sauvagii.jpg: 0
2. Makifrosch-59.jpg: 0
3. Waxy.tree.frog.arp.jpg: +2
=>
File:Phyllomedusa sauvagii.jpg: Declined.
File:Makifrosch-59.jpg: Declined.
File:Waxy.tree.frog.arp.jpg: Promoted.
--Eusebius (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Makifrosch-59.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
Jutta234 (talk) on 2010-05-24 10:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Phyllomedusa sauvagii
Reason:
as suggested by User:Wsiegmund -- Jutta234 (talk)
Scores: 
1. Phyllomedusa sauvagii.jpg: 0
2. Makifrosch-59.jpg: 0
3. Waxy.tree.frog.arp.jpg: +2
=>
File:Phyllomedusa sauvagii.jpg: Declined.
File:Makifrosch-59.jpg: Declined.
File:Waxy.tree.frog.arp.jpg: Promoted.
--Eusebius (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Waxy.tree.frog.arp.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
Jutta234 (talk) on 2010-05-24 10:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Phyllomedusa sauvagii
Reason:
as suggested by User:Wsiegmund -- Jutta234 (talk)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Now geocoded. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Not technically the best one. But it shows the whole profile of the animal, on the other pics too many parts are hidden. This is the most illustrative IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 17:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Not technically the best, but this is VI and it is important to show the whole organism. However, it doesn't show the underside or pupil shape. I would be receptive to arguments based on the depiction of notable or distinguishing features. Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Phyllomedusa sauvagii.jpg: 0
2. Makifrosch-59.jpg: 0
3. Waxy.tree.frog.arp.jpg: +2
=>
File:Phyllomedusa sauvagii.jpg: Declined.
File:Makifrosch-59.jpg: Declined.
File:Waxy.tree.frog.arp.jpg: Promoted.
--Eusebius (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)

Vespula germanica[edit]

   
AD2009Sep09 Vespula germanica 03.jpg
View
Nominated by:
Jutta234 (talk) on 2010-05-21 21:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Vespula germanica (German Wasp)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We must see the 3 points on the head I suggest to associate AD2009Sep09 Vespula germanica 01.jpg and AD2009Sep09 Vespula germanica 03.jpg --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
MVR Scores: 
1. AD2009Sep09 Vespula germanica 03.jpg: 0 <--
2. AD2009Sep09 Vespula germanica 01.jpg: 0
=>
File:AD2009Sep09 Vespula germanica 03.jpg: Undecided <--
File:AD2009Sep09 Vespula germanica 01.jpg: Undecided
--Myrabella (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
AD2009Sep09 Vespula germanica 01.jpg
View
Nominated by:
Jutta234 (talk) on 2010-05-24 11:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Vespula germanica (German Wasp)
Reason:
as suggested by User:Archaeodontosaurus -- Jutta234 (talk)

MVR Scores:

1. AD2009Sep09 Vespula germanica 03.jpg: 0 
2. AD2009Sep09 Vespula germanica 01.jpg: 0 <--
=>
File:AD2009Sep09 Vespula germanica 03.jpg: Undecided 
File:AD2009Sep09 Vespula germanica 01.jpg: Undecided <--
--Myrabella (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)

Folly (architecture)[edit]

   
Broadway-tower-cotswolds-modf.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
Matthew Proctor (talk) on 2010-05-26 04:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Folly (architecture)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment About the scope wording: it should be in the singular. About possible competitors : I intend to set up a MVR, with some famous 18th-century French follies, e.g. this one (my own contribution:-)—note that the landscape is artificial too) and that one (this Temple of Modern Philosophy was unfinished on purpose—I will complete the description and add a geotag), plus a contemporary folly, as this concept is still used in architecture nowodays (perhaps this one). --Myrabella (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - This is a hard scope, but I think I can limit it to two. I think are best Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Having learned that this is a folly, I find it the most impressive example and the most impressive picture. --Ikar.us (talk) 11:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Image description completed, and scope in the singular. --Myrabella (talk) 08:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Broadway-tower-cotswolds-modf.jpg: +2
2. Erm11.JPG: 0
3. Petit Trianon Temple Amour: +1
4. P1010614.JPG: 0
5. FoliemailLaRochelle.jpg: 0
=>
File:Broadway-tower-cotswolds-modf.jpg: Promoted.
File:Erm11.JPG: Declined.
File:Chateau de Versailles Temple Amour.jpg: Declined.
File:P1010614.JPG: Declined.
File:FoliemailLaRochelle.jpg: Declined.
--Eusebius (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Erm11.JPG
View opposition
Nominated by:
Myrabella (talk) on 2010-05-26 21:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Folly (architecture)
Reason:
The Temple of Modern Philosophy in the Jean-Jacques Rousseau park at Ermenonville is a famous 18th-century French folly, left unfinished on purpose. More information on this page in English. -- Myrabella (talk)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose fake ruins could be a separate scope. --Ikar.us (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Deliberate ruins a full part of follies. Moreover, please note that this one is not "in ruins", but "unfinished". An important point here is that it has a philosophical intent, beyond its picturesque aspect and ornemental use. It was often the case for 18th century follies. One can read in en:Folly#Follies in 18th Century French and English Gardens: "The temple of philosophy at Ermenonville, left unfinished, symbolized that knowledge would never be complete, while the temple of modern virtues at Stowe was deliberately ruined, to show the decay of contemporary morals." Do you feel the difference? --Myrabella (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
      I understand the intended difference. Was the philosophy temple, in original state, designed to look like an active bulding site, not decayed?
      I guess that most deliberate ruins don't have all necessary remainders of a complete building, but would reveal under investigation that they were never completed. And that therefore the difference in the ideas is hardly visible in the objects.
      --Ikar.us (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The inspiration was the temple of the Sibyl in Tivoli (a view). In Ermenonville, some roughly shaped stones are put on the ground in reserve to continue the temple; and there is a Latin inscription saying "Quis hoc perficiet?" (“who will complete this?”) --Myrabella (talk) 01:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Fake ruins are amongst the most common types of follies. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - This is a hard scope, but I think I can limit it to two. I think are best Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Broadway-tower-cotswolds-modf.jpg: +2
2. Erm11.JPG: 0
3. Petit Trianon Temple Amour: +1
4. P1010614.JPG: 0
5. FoliemailLaRochelle.jpg: 0
=>
File:Broadway-tower-cotswolds-modf.jpg: Promoted.
File:Erm11.JPG: Declined.
File:Chateau de Versailles Temple Amour.jpg: Declined.
File:P1010614.JPG: Declined.
File:FoliemailLaRochelle.jpg: Declined.
--Eusebius (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Chateau de Versailles Temple Amour.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
Myrabella (talk) on 2010-05-26 22:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Folly (architecture)
Reason:
The 'Temple of Love' is one of the famous 18th-century follies built in the Petit Trianon gardens in Versailles, France. The landscape is somewhat fake (or re-interpreted) too, with an artificial island and river. -- Myrabella (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Would every example from de:Monopteros (Tempel) qualify as a folly? Justr because it looks like a temple, but has no religious function? --Ikar.us (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
    • This edifice is specific because of the statue of Eros (it has been built originally to house a statue by Bouchardon in fact) but also of its carved ornementation and of its artificial landscape (a ref. in French [1]). --Myrabella (talk) 13:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Broadway-tower-cotswolds-modf.jpg: +2
2. Erm11.JPG: 0
3. Petit Trianon Temple Amour: +1
4. P1010614.JPG: 0
5. FoliemailLaRochelle.jpg: 0
=>
File:Broadway-tower-cotswolds-modf.jpg: Promoted.
File:Erm11.JPG: Declined.
File:Chateau de Versailles Temple Amour.jpg: Declined.
File:P1010614.JPG: Declined.
File:FoliemailLaRochelle.jpg: Declined.
--Eusebius (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
P1010614.JPG
View opposition
Nominated by:
Myrabella (talk) on 2010-05-26 22:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Folly (architecture)
Reason:
An example of contemporary follies. Not geolocated yet, but it is possible: according to nl:Lijst van beelden in Appingedam, this folly is located in Fivelpoort street in Appingedam, and has been designed by a renowned architect, Zaha Hadid. -- Myrabella (talk)
Scores: 
1. Broadway-tower-cotswolds-modf.jpg: +2
2. Erm11.JPG: 0
3. Petit Trianon Temple Amour: +1
4. P1010614.JPG: 0
5. FoliemailLaRochelle.jpg: 0
=>
File:Broadway-tower-cotswolds-modf.jpg: Promoted.
File:Erm11.JPG: Declined.
File:Chateau de Versailles Temple Amour.jpg: Declined.
File:P1010614.JPG: Declined.
File:FoliemailLaRochelle.jpg: Declined.
--Eusebius (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
FoliemailLaRochelle.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2010-05-28 21:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Folly (architecture)
Reason:
an example of a XIX copy of a XVIIIth century folly in a public garden in La Rochelle, France -- Jebulon (talk)

May I play with you ? Another example, named after Louis-Benjamin Fleuriau de Bellevue , a local-famous scientist born in La Rochelle, initiator of the natural history museum of the city.--Jebulon (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure: those kinds of things actually serve a reasonable purpose - protection from rain and sun, and don't have a form that suggests any other purpose. That's less of a folly, in the original sense they're named after, than fake ruins, or a huge building made just to satisfy curiosity. This one even has benches inside. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Maybe...Not only a pure "scenery", I agree...--Jebulon (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Broadway-tower-cotswolds-modf.jpg: +2
2. Erm11.JPG: 0
3. Petit Trianon Temple Amour: +1
4. P1010614.JPG: 0
5. FoliemailLaRochelle.jpg: 0
=>
File:Broadway-tower-cotswolds-modf.jpg: Promoted.
File:Erm11.JPG: Declined.
File:Chateau de Versailles Temple Amour.jpg: Declined.
File:P1010614.JPG: Declined.
File:FoliemailLaRochelle.jpg: Declined.
--Eusebius (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)

Anaxyrus boreas (Western Toad)[edit]

   
Bufo boreas 10565.JPG
View opposition
Nominated by:
Walter Siegmund (talk) on 2010-05-22 16:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Anaxyrus boreas (Western Toad)
Reason:
The parotoid glands of this species helps to distinguish it from others. Located behind the eyes, they are oval, widely separated, and larger than the upper eyelids. The right gland of this individual is well-depicted in this image. Also visible is the whitish line along the mid-back. This image is used by six projects in seven articles. -- Walter Siegmund (talk)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You're not making it very easy with all your good images of this animal ;-). I do prefer File:Bufo boreas 5629.JPG actually as named characteristics are well shown and overall the toad stands better out from its background. Lycaon (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the kind words. I like the one you cite also, but I thought reviewers might object to the obstruction and shadow. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Bufo boreas 10565.JPG: 0
2. Bufo boreas 5629.JPG: +1
=>
File:Bufo boreas 10565.JPG: Declined.
File:Bufo boreas 5629.JPG: Promoted.
--Eusebius (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Bufo boreas 5629.JPG
View promotion
Nominated by:
Walter Siegmund (talk) on 2010-05-27 23:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Anaxyrus boreas (Western Toad)
Reason:
Proposed by Lycaon. -- Walter Siegmund (talk)
Scores: 
1. Bufo boreas 10565.JPG: 0
2. Bufo boreas 5629.JPG: +1
=>
File:Bufo boreas 10565.JPG: Declined.
File:Bufo boreas 5629.JPG: Promoted.
--Eusebius (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)

Robert Surcouf[edit]

   
Robert Surcouf LoH engraving.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2010-05-29 19:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Robert Surcouf
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Can we promote this for VI? It's incredibly badly documented - a third-hand source, no date, etc. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Fails Criteria 4 ("Is fully described on the image page"). I don't think there's much chance of getting around this issue, unfortunately. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you think it should be considered as a serious candidate if we could find the necessary info? --Eusebius (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, there's a painting this is probably loosely based off of, and, judging by this using stipple engraving, this, and hence the painting is of the right age to be from life. I'd say the painting was the one A. most likely to be located, B. Most likely to be a serious contender to the statue. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
      • The versions we have of the painting are far below review size, unfortunately. For me, I don't really like this version, because it is not from the "glorious times" ("glorious" standing for "bothering the English"), rather from the "fat times" (standing from "drinking their tea"). But it's a very subjective opinion. --Eusebius (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Robert Surcouf LoH engraving.jpg: -1
2. Robert Surcouf engraving.jpg: -1
3. Saint-Malo - Surcouf plan américain.jpg: 0
4. Robert Surcouf.jpg: -1
5. Saint-Malo - Surcouf et le Fort National crop.jpg: +3
=>
File:Robert Surcouf LoH engraving.jpg: Declined.
File:Robert Surcouf engraving.jpg: Declined.
File:Saint-Malo - Surcouf plan américain.jpg: Declined.
File:Robert Surcouf.jpg: Declined.
File:Saint-Malo - Surcouf et le Fort National crop.jpg: Promoted.
--Eusebius (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Robert Surcouf engraving.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2010-05-29 19:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Robert Surcouf
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Can we promote this for VI? It's incredibly badly documented - a third-hand source, no date, etc. Adam Cuerden (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Fails Criteria 4 ("Is fully described on the image page"). I don't think there's much chance of getting around this issue, unfortunately. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you think it should be considered as a serious candidate if we could find the necessary info? --Eusebius (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Robert Surcouf LoH engraving.jpg: -1
2. Robert Surcouf engraving.jpg: -1
3. Saint-Malo - Surcouf plan américain.jpg: 0
4. Robert Surcouf.jpg: -1
5. Saint-Malo - Surcouf et le Fort National crop.jpg: +3
=>
File:Robert Surcouf LoH engraving.jpg: Declined.
File:Robert Surcouf engraving.jpg: Declined.
File:Saint-Malo - Surcouf plan américain.jpg: Declined.
File:Robert Surcouf.jpg: Declined.
File:Saint-Malo - Surcouf et le Fort National crop.jpg: Promoted.
--Eusebius (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Saint-Malo - Surcouf plan américain.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2010-05-29 19:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Robert Surcouf
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't like only showing the top half of the statue. Saint-Malo - Surcouf et le Fort National.jpg is clearly the best at a reasonable zoom, but we should probably have a crop to just the statue too. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Robert Surcouf LoH engraving.jpg: -1
2. Robert Surcouf engraving.jpg: -1
3. Saint-Malo - Surcouf plan américain.jpg: 0
4. Robert Surcouf.jpg: -1
5. Saint-Malo - Surcouf et le Fort National crop.jpg: +3
=>
File:Robert Surcouf LoH engraving.jpg: Declined.
File:Robert Surcouf engraving.jpg: Declined.
File:Saint-Malo - Surcouf plan américain.jpg: Declined.
File:Robert Surcouf.jpg: Declined.
File:Saint-Malo - Surcouf et le Fort National crop.jpg: Promoted.
--Eusebius (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Robert Surcouf.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2010-05-29 19:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Robert Surcouf
Reason:
Or maybe a crop of this picture, instead of this candidate? --Eusebius (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC) -- Eusebius (talk)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I had already used the picture by Eusebius quoted here, in the fr:WP article, because having the sea in the representation of a corsair adds a plus, IMO. Maybe a crop without the fences? --Myrabella (talk) 06:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment agree with Myrabella and nominator, a crop of the initial file (fence) would be perfect IMO, because of the sea. --Jebulon (talk) 10:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunate lighting compared with the new candidate, which would be more illustrative even without the extra bit of sea. --Myrabella (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Robert Surcouf LoH engraving.jpg: -1
2. Robert Surcouf engraving.jpg: -1
3. Saint-Malo - Surcouf plan américain.jpg: 0
4. Robert Surcouf.jpg: -1
5. Saint-Malo - Surcouf et le Fort National crop.jpg: +3
=>
File:Robert Surcouf LoH engraving.jpg: Declined.
File:Robert Surcouf engraving.jpg: Declined.
File:Saint-Malo - Surcouf plan américain.jpg: Declined.
File:Robert Surcouf.jpg: Declined.
File:Saint-Malo - Surcouf et le Fort National crop.jpg: Promoted.
--Eusebius (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Saint-Malo - Surcouf et le Fort National crop.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2010-05-30 11:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Robert Surcouf
Reason:
Better like that? -- Eusebius (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Now we have it! =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Having the sea in the representation of a corsair, in his birth town, adds a plus. The most illustrative image for the scope IMO, all criteria met. --Myrabella (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question The fort already existed when he lived. Why is it cropped away? --Ikar.us (talk) 17:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
To make the statue more central in the composition. The fort brings some context (although it is not directly related to Surcouf I think: most of the city existed when he lived), but without it the image is a better simple and direct illustration of, say, an article about Surcouf. Besides, it makes Surcouf larger at the same image size. --Eusebius (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
    • I considered the uncropped version, but thought it made the statue too small in any reasonable size for an article thumbnail, unfortunately. The uncropped versin is a better image for gweeneral use, but in the specific context VIC is judged in, this is better. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support You know what ? I'm not ill, but nevertheless I agree with everybody ! (and I love this)--Jebulon (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Robert Surcouf LoH engraving.jpg: -1
2. Robert Surcouf engraving.jpg: -1
3. Saint-Malo - Surcouf plan américain.jpg: 0
4. Robert Surcouf.jpg: -1
5. Saint-Malo - Surcouf et le Fort National crop.jpg: +3
=>
File:Robert Surcouf LoH engraving.jpg: Declined.
File:Robert Surcouf engraving.jpg: Declined.
File:Saint-Malo - Surcouf plan américain.jpg: Declined.
File:Robert Surcouf.jpg: Declined.
File:Saint-Malo - Surcouf et le Fort National crop.jpg: Promoted.
--Eusebius (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)

Aleppo[edit]

   
Pano Alep 1.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2010-06-03 09:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Aleppo
Reason:
Maybe a montage of both panos can be considered? They cannot be stitched together though. File:Pano Alep 2.jpg shows the Great Mosque and the souq, unlike the other one. -- Eusebius (talk)
Scores: 
1. Pano Alep 1.jpg: 0 <--
2. Pano Alep 2.jpg: +1
=>
File:Pano Alep 1.jpg: Declined. <--
File:Pano Alep 2.jpg: Promoted.
--Ikar.us (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Pano Alep 2.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2010-06-03 09:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Aleppo
Reason:
Maybe a montage of both panos can be considered? They cannot be stitched together though. File:Pano Alep 2.jpg shows the Great Mosque and the souq, unlike the other one. -- Eusebius (talk)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Instead of a montage, a set could be considered. But then it would be perfect to have all four directions! --Ikar.us (talk) 21:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
That's all I have. --Eusebius (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, since it shows more characteristic sights. --Ikar.us (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Pano Alep 1.jpg: 0
2. Pano Alep 2.jpg: +1 <--
=>
File:Pano Alep 1.jpg: Declined.
File:Pano Alep 2.jpg: Promoted. <--
--Ikar.us (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)

Westerheversand lighthouse[edit]

   
Westerheversand Leuchtturm.JPG
View opposition
Nominated by:
Ikar.us (talk) on 2010-05-27 21:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Westerheversand lighthouse, Germany
Reason:
Shows the well-known silhouette as well as the situation and access way, and the farther vicinity. Image by User:Zacke82 -- Ikar.us (talk)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I much prefer File:Westerhever.jpg on this scope. The farther vicinity is irrelevant imo, and the other file illustrates better at review size (and it's straight!). Lycaon (talk) 21:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The farther vicinity is a bonus, but the near vicinity is IMO relevant and missing on your suggestion. File:Leuchtturm Westerhever.JPG could be a competitor. Pictogram voting question.svg Question What is unstraight in the nominee? --Ikar.us (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Would you please set up a MVR? --Myrabella (talk) 10:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Me? I still prefer my nominee. But here you are! --Ikar.us (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This one is interesting because we can see a bit of the shore in the background (important for a lighthouse, IMO) and something of the salt marshes which are notable in this landscape, according to en:Westerhever. But I find the sheep without legs in the foreground disturbing. I would suggest a cropped version, with the same proportions, without the sheep in first line and with the lighthouse slightly decentered toward the left like in the third candidate. --Myrabella (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done (as separate file). --Ikar.us (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Westerheversand Leuchtturm.JPG: 0 <--
2. Westerhever.jpg: 0
3. Leuchtturm Westerhever.JPG: 0
4. Westerheversand Leuchtturm.jpg: +2
=>
File:Westerheversand Leuchtturm.JPG: Declined. <--
File:Westerhever.jpg: Declined.
File:Leuchtturm Westerhever.JPG: Declined.
File:Westerheversand Leuchtturm.jpg: Promoted.
--Ikar.us (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Westerhever.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
suggested by Lycaon (talk) on 2010-06-03 19:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Westerheversand lighthouse, Germany
Reason:
suggested in review -- suggested by Lycaon (talk)
Scores: 
1. Westerheversand Leuchtturm.JPG: 0
2. Westerhever.jpg: 0 <--
3. Leuchtturm Westerhever.JPG: 0
4. Westerheversand Leuchtturm.jpg: +2
=>
File:Westerheversand Leuchtturm.JPG: Declined.
File:Westerhever.jpg: Declined. <--
File:Leuchtturm Westerhever.JPG: Declined.
File:Westerheversand Leuchtturm.jpg: Promoted.
--Ikar.us (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Leuchtturm Westerhever.JPG
View opposition
Nominated by:
Ikar.us (talk) on 2010-06-03 19:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Westerheversand lighthouse, Germany
Reason:
shows the character of the place -- Ikar.us (talk)
Scores: 
1. Westerheversand Leuchtturm.JPG: 0
2. Westerhever.jpg: 0
3. Leuchtturm Westerhever.JPG: 0 <--
4. Westerheversand Leuchtturm.jpg: +2
=>
File:Westerheversand Leuchtturm.JPG: Declined.
File:Westerhever.jpg: Declined.
File:Leuchtturm Westerhever.JPG: Declined. <--
File:Westerheversand Leuchtturm.jpg: Promoted.
--Ikar.us (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Westerheversand Leuchtturm.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
Ikar.us (talk) on 2010-06-04 13:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Westerheversand lighthouse, Germany
Reason:
Cropped as suggested. -- Ikar.us (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I support this image because here we can see a bit of the shore in the background (important for a lighthouse) and something of the salt marshes which are notable in this landscape, according to en:Westerhever; this cropped version without distracting sheep is better than the first nominee IMO. Otherwise documented and geocoded => criteria met to me. Maybe the Category:Salt marshes could be added. --Myrabella (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you, also for rotating. I'd like to give some additional Pictogram voting info.svg Info: This lighthouse is a well-known motif, from a famous beer advertising, postcards sold all over the sea shore, etc. It appears in TV series, spmetimes pretending to be located in a different sorrounding, like on an island in the sea, or within mellow meadows with cows near a village. That's why I find it especially important to chhose a wide view, which shows the character of the location. --Ikar.us (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The sky above the lighthouse adds little value. The composition with the centered tower is mitigated by the asymmetric complex. But quibbles aside, I think this one satisfies the criteria best. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Westerheversand Leuchtturm.JPG: 0
2. Westerhever.jpg: 0
3. Leuchtturm Westerhever.JPG: 0
4. Westerheversand Leuchtturm.jpg: +2 <--
=>
File:Westerheversand Leuchtturm.JPG: Declined.
File:Westerhever.jpg: Declined.
File:Leuchtturm Westerhever.JPG: Declined.
File:Westerheversand Leuchtturm.jpg: Promoted. <--
--Ikar.us (talk) 11:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)

Mamiya C330[edit]

   
C330with grip.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2010-06-05 21:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Mamiya C330
Reason:
Picture by DANYvanvee -- Eusebius (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I tend to prefer this one, with the viewer open and a grip holder. --Myrabella (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. C330with grip.jpg: +1 <--
2. Mamiya C330 IMGP9300.jpg: +2
3. Mamiya C330 Pro F.jpg: +1
=>
File:C330with grip.jpg: Declined. <--
File:Mamiya C330 IMGP9300.jpg: Promoted.
File:Mamiya C330 Pro F.jpg: Declined.
--Ikar.us (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Mamiya C330 IMGP9300.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2010-06-05 21:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Mamiya C330
Reason:
Picture by Johann H. Addicks -- Eusebius (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support single view configuration works --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The two objective lenses are less well depicted in this image than in the two others. --Myrabella (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)\
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I prefer this one because it's the only one that shows the bellows wich seems to be a part of the camera. --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support because of the extendible gusset (?), visible in this picture only. --Jebulon (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. C330with grip.jpg: +1
2. Mamiya C330 IMGP9300.jpg: +2 <--
3. Mamiya C330 Pro F.jpg: +1
=>
File:C330with grip.jpg: Declined.
File:Mamiya C330 IMGP9300.jpg: Promoted. <--
File:Mamiya C330 Pro F.jpg: Declined.
--Ikar.us (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Mamiya C330 Pro F.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2010-06-05 21:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Mamiya C330
I do not think I have made a picture with the viewer open. I think this was the most "probable VI" from my set. --Eusebius (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, front and side of the lenses and the dials on the side of the camera are visible. --Ikar.us (talk) 09:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. C330with grip.jpg: +1
2. Mamiya C330 IMGP9300.jpg: +2
3. Mamiya C330 Pro F.jpg: +1 <--
=>
File:C330with grip.jpg: Declined.
File:Mamiya C330 IMGP9300.jpg: Promoted.
File:Mamiya C330 Pro F.jpg: Declined. <--
--Ikar.us (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)

Novodevichy Convent, Moscow[edit]

   
Russie - Moscou - Novodevichy 4.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
Ikar.us (talk), photo by User:Lotusalp on 2010-06-11 21:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Novodevichy Convent, Moscow
Reason:
allMost characteristic buildings in one image, filling it -- Ikar.us (talk), photo by User:Lotusalp
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree with reason. Documented, geocoded, used in 8 pages in 5 projects. The only other images I've found giving such an overall view are 19th-century illustrations (1; 2). The nominated image is the best image for the scope, IMO. P.S. : I've edited a new version of the file (slight increase of luminosity and contrast, chiefly). --Myrabella (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Some buildings are missing, at least one church and part of monastery.See this : [2] --Mile (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Not on Commons presently? Please consider that the choice is limited to the available images on Commons. --Myrabella (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
    • He's right that my reason was wrong. Not all buildings are there, Dormition Cathedral and Intercession Church are missing. But it's hardly possible to put all of then them on a terrestric image. Aerial would be perfect, but we don't have one. --Ikar.us (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I've transferred the proposed opponent. The tip of Dormition Cathedral is visible. That's not much more, and the image quality is a bit weird. --Ikar.us (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Would someone set up a MVR? --Myrabella (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I stay agree with the more accurate reason :-) This one remains my favorite among the 4 candidates. --Myrabella (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Some considerations about the scope: I wondered why en: distinguishes Novodevichy Convent and Donskoy Monastery, while ru: doesn't. Found that very different differences were usual for these terms:
    1. Monastery for a facility, convent for an organisational unit.
    2. A monastery's inhabitants spend their lifes in cloister, a convent is the homebase for a congregation who operates in the world.
    3. Monastery is for monks, convent for nuns. Seems that the latter is followed here. --Ikar.us (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
  • The article in en:WP begins with "Novodevichy Convent, also known as Bogoroditse-Smolensky Monastery (Russian: Новоде́вичий монасты́рь, Богоро́дице-Смоле́нский монасты́рь)" [...] Its name, sometimes translated as the New Maidens' Monastery, was devised to differ from an ancient maidens' convent in the Moscow Kremlin". I guess your point 3 may explain the translation "Convent". --Myrabella (talk) 13:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
    Yes, that's what I tried to say. --Ikar.us (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Russie - Moscou - Novodevichy 4.jpg: 0 <--
2. Novodeviči.JPG: -1
3. Novodevichy Monastery.jpg: +1 
3. Novodievivhi-p1030345.jpg: -1 
=>
File:Russie - Moscou - Novodevichy 4.jpg: Declined. <--
File:Novodeviči.JPG: Declined.
File:Novodevichy Monastery.jpg: Promoted.
File:Novodievivhi-p1030345.jpg: Declined.
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Novodeviči.JPG
View opposition
Nominated by:
suggested by Mile (talk) on 2010-06-21 10:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Novodevichy Convent, Moscow
Reason:
more buildings in the image -- suggested by Mile (talk)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThat overblown sky is far too distracting to use this in an article, which goes against the point of VI. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This one is mine, and its a bit of poor quality, however here is one of similar composition but made in better conditions File:Novodevichy Convent.jpg.--94.140.88.117 13:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you, but I didn't consider those with scaffolds. You may nominate it yourself, of course. --Ikar.us (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Russie - Moscou - Novodevichy 4.jpg: 0
2. Novodeviči.JPG: -1 <--
3. Novodevichy Monastery.jpg: +1 
3. Novodievivhi-p1030345.jpg: -1 
=>
File:Russie - Moscou - Novodevichy 4.jpg: Declined.
File:Novodeviči.JPG: Declined. <--
File:Novodevichy Monastery.jpg: Promoted.
File:Novodievivhi-p1030345.jpg: Declined.
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Novodevichy Monastery.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
Ikar.us (talk) on 2010-06-21 10:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Novodevichy Convent, Moscow
Reason:
overview of most of the complex in one image -- Ikar.us (talk)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is a high-rise building on this viewpoint. If anyone takes a photo from there, it has very good chances. --Ikar.us (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question I was here some years ago, but I don't really remember. Is it now as it was on this pic ?--Jebulon (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Roads and vehicles have a different appearance, but their ground plot and the overall situation looks much the same on the Google map. Even the small driveway approaching from the left seems to have a tarmac successor. (But File:Nikolskaya tower, Novodevichy convent.jpg looks frightening.) --Ikar.us (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the information about the difference of appearance of roads and vehicles and macadam at the end of the XIXth century and at the beginning of the XXIst, my precious friend Smile... I'm sure you know that politic matters here are different too, and that's why my question (you did not answer) concerned the building (destruction ? reconstruction ? restorations ?) complex inside the walls... Well, if this pic is the more complete, then I Symbol support vote.svg Support (I like vintage views, too...)--Jebulon (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
      • In the short period when the monastery was completely secularized, the facility was assigned to the state history museum. From 1944 on it was again partly in religious use. No evidence for any destructions. Restorations have been performed, of course (thus he scaffold problem), but without major changes. Transfiguration cathedral looks white on the painting, but has much red now. I should link detail photos to make it clearer. --Ikar.us (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
        ✓ Done image links. --Ikar.us (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
      • PS. Thank you for voting; I feared that this MVR would remain undecided. --Ikar.us (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Russie - Moscou - Novodevichy 4.jpg: 0
2. Novodeviči.JPG: -1
3. Novodevichy Monastery.jpg: +1 <--
3. Novodievivhi-p1030345.jpg: -1 
=>
File:Russie - Moscou - Novodevichy 4.jpg: Declined.
File:Novodeviči.JPG: Declined.
File:Novodevichy Monastery.jpg: Promoted. <--
File:Novodievivhi-p1030345.jpg: Declined.
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Novodievivhi-p1030345.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
Ikar.us (talk) on 2010-06-21 10:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Novodevichy Convent, Moscow
Reason:
another selection of buildings -- Ikar.us (talk)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Documented now but to me this picture doesn't give a good idea of the overall site, because of its angle of view. --Myrabella (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Russie - Moscou - Novodevichy 4.jpg: 0
2. Novodeviči.JPG: -1
3. Novodevichy Monastery.jpg: +1 
3. Novodievivhi-p1030345.jpg: -1 <--
=>
File:Russie - Moscou - Novodevichy 4.jpg: Declined.
File:Novodeviči.JPG: Declined.
File:Novodevichy Monastery.jpg: Promoted.
File:Novodievivhi-p1030345.jpg: Declined. <--
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)

St. Joseph church in Žulová[edit]

   
Žulová - kostel svatého Josefa.JPG
View opposition
Nominated by:
Pudelek (talk) on 2010-06-17 09:29 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Joseph church in Žulová
Reason:
A very interesting object from the Czech Republic - the tower was part of castle Friedberg -- Pudelek (talk)
  • Really an exceptionalobject. Therefore i claim scopeworthiness and Symbol support vote.svg Support. --Ikar.us (talk) 16:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral The image shows the tower very well but the church itself is not visible. Does this comply with the rule illustrates well? Lycaon (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Good point. I think the church would be an average small town church and hardly worth a scope without the special tower. There's at least enough visible of the nave to understand the proportions of the building, so nothing essential missing IMO. But I set up an MVR with the second image, which shows a bit more of the side facade. --Ikar.us (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question I'm sorry, I don't know this place, and then I don't really understand with this image how the tower "works" with the church... Maybe a scope named "tower of..." could be better ?--Jebulon (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting question.svg answer This is not tower - this is church with tower from old castle --Pudelek (talk) 15:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
    • You are trying to see from the view of someone who isn't familiar with churches at all? It works like most simple churches, as illustrated in the leading image of en:Church architecture. --Ikar.us (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Žulová - kostel svatého Josefa.JPG: 0 <--
2. Žulová - kostel svatého Josefa1.JPG: +1
=>
File:Žulová - kostel svatého Josefa.JPG: Declined. <--
File:Žulová - kostel svatého Josefa1.JPG: Promoted.
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Žulová - kostel svatého Josefa1.JPG
View promotion
Nominated by:
Ikar.us (talk) on 2010-06-21 11:18 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Joseph church in Žulová
Reason:
a bit more of the side facade visible -- Ikar.us (talk)

Symbol support vote.svg Support this --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Žulová - kostel svatého Josefa.JPG: 0
2. Žulová - kostel svatého Josefa1.JPG: +1 <--
=>
File:Žulová - kostel svatého Josefa.JPG: Declined.
File:Žulová - kostel svatého Josefa1.JPG: Promoted. <--
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)

Nikon D3000[edit]

   
D3000 Nikon.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
The High Fin Sperm Whale on 2010-06-15 04:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Nikon D3000

Symbol oppose vote.svg 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). "All images are expected to be geocoded unless it would not be appropriate to do so". It doesn't mention any rationale for exemption 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. -- Lycaon (talk) 06:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the sense of coordinates of a camera. --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Or one follows guidelines and geocodes, or one documents that it has a reason to be exempted and then one doesn't gecodes. No in-betweens. Lycaon (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Still, I don't see why this needs Geocoding. What difference does it make whether it's in Vancouver or Dhaka? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
It seems that he wants you to formally claim the exception. Usually reviewers just fix formal errors. :-( --Ikar.us (talk) 10:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • However, I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose a dusty camera, partly covered by labels and theft protection, in a show case with cluttered background. --Ikar.us (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Asking for a geocode here is ridiculous IMO, but nonetheless, it's not best in scope. Reflections, background, that theft protection thing ... nope, sorry. -- H005 Sexy Mouth transparent.png 23:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree that geocoding here is meaningless. Yann (talk) 15:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • So do I, but why is there then location information in the file description?? Lycaon (talk) 15:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
  • If you think geocoding is meaningless, why are you opposing because of a lack of it?--Nilfanion (talk) 10:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 3 oppose =>
declined. Ikar.us (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. D3000 Nikon.jpg: -2 <--
2. Nikon D3000 by Carschten.jpg: -1
3. Nikon D3000 with Lens 18-55mm.jpg: -2 
=>
File:D3000 Nikon.jpg: Declined. <--
File:Nikon D3000 by Carschten.jpg: Declined.
File:Nikon D3000 with Lens 18-55mm.jpg: Declined.
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Nikon D3000 by Carschten.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
suggested by Nilfanion (talk) on 2010-06-21 21:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Nikon D3000

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Not geocoded. I'll be very strict about geotags, and I shall oppose every image that lacks both geotag, and a reasonable explanation for why geolocation is irrelevant. --Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 16:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose =>
declined. Ikar.us (talk)
Scores: 
1. D3000 Nikon.jpg: -2
2. Nikon D3000 by Carschten.jpg: -1 <--
3. Nikon D3000 with Lens 18-55mm.jpg: -2 
=>
File:D3000 Nikon.jpg: Declined.
File:Nikon D3000 by Carschten.jpg: Declined. <--
File:Nikon D3000 with Lens 18-55mm.jpg: Declined.
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Nikon D3000 with Lens 18-55mm.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
suggested by Nilfanion (talk) on 2010-06-21 21:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Nikon D3000
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, not much of the camarea visible. --Ikar.us (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg 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). "All images are expected to be geocoded unless it would not be appropriate to do so". 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. -Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 16:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Result: 0 support, 2 oppose =>
declined. Ikar.us (talk) 08:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. D3000 Nikon.jpg: -2
2. Nikon D3000 by Carschten.jpg: -1
3. Nikon D3000 with Lens 18-55mm.jpg: -2  <--
=>
File:D3000 Nikon.jpg: Declined.
File:Nikon D3000 by Carschten.jpg: Declined.
File:Nikon D3000 with Lens 18-55mm.jpg: Declined.  <--
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)