Commons:Closed most valued reviews/2010/09

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

Closed most valued reviews/2010/09

Coreus marginatus[edit]

   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Alvesgaspar (talk) on 2010-08-20 11:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Coreus marginatus

 Info -- I believe this is a better depiction of the species, shown in it snatural environment, than the present VI. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] 

MVR Scores: 
1. Bug July 2010-2.jpg: 0  <--
2. Thomas Bresson - Coreus marginatus-2 (by).jpg: 0 (current VI within same scope)
3. Coreus marginatus qtl1.jpg: 0 
4. Coreus marginatus Global.jpg: +2
=>
File:Bug July 2010-2.jpg: Declined.  <--
File:Thomas Bresson - Coreus marginatus-2 (by).jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former.
File:Coreus marginatus qtl1.jpg: Declined.
File:Coreus marginatus Global.jpg: Promoted.
--Myrabella (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
ComputerHotline (talk) on 2009-04-23 12:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Coreus marginatus (Dock bug)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 09:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Info -- This is the present VI, being challenged by the other picture in the MVR. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] 

MVR Scores: 
1. Bug July 2010-2.jpg: 0
2. Thomas Bresson - Coreus marginatus-2 (by).jpg: 0 (current VI within same scope) <--
3. Coreus marginatus qtl1.jpg: 0 
4. Coreus marginatus Global.jpg: +2
=>
File:Bug July 2010-2.jpg: Declined.
File:Thomas Bresson - Coreus marginatus-2 (by).jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <--
File:Coreus marginatus qtl1.jpg: Declined.
File:Coreus marginatus Global.jpg: Promoted.
--Myrabella (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
Quartl (talk) on 2010-08-21 10:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Coreus marginatus (Dock bug)
Reason:
I'll throw this one in the fray as well. I believe it shows better detail than the other two images. -- Quartl (talk)

MVR Scores: 

1. Bug July 2010-2.jpg: 0  
2. Thomas Bresson - Coreus marginatus-2 (by).jpg: 0 (current VI within same scope)
3. Coreus marginatus qtl1.jpg: 0 <--
4. Coreus marginatus Global.jpg: +2
=>
File:Bug July 2010-2.jpg: Declined.
File:Thomas Bresson - Coreus marginatus-2 (by).jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former.
File:Coreus marginatus qtl1.jpg: Declined. <--
File:Coreus marginatus Global.jpg: Promoted.
--Myrabella (talk) 10:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2010-08-22 14:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Coreus marginatus Dock bug
Reason:
Two sides. Geocoding of the sampling. -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk)
  •  Comment -- I known I cannot vote but I would gladly choose this type of depiction. However the lighting is not good enough, considering it is a studio shot. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The views "entomological" should be routine for insects, if I had another life I think I would have. I confine myself to proposed from time to time as and in my meetings. These pictures should be there reference which does not exclude any of the scenes "in vivo" and a label image value with a reduced scope.
Also you're right I do not master very well the white background, but I thought it was an interesting photo chalenge. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Without doubt, this one beats the other three quality-wise by a good margin. However, both, images of living animals in natural habitat and pictures of prepared specimens, are valuable in their own way. I'm not sure how to put this in subscopes and what the generic scope should refer to. --Quartl (talk) 08:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support In principle, I think that this kind of view, if technically better (it's the case here IMO), must be the reference for an encyclopedical use. As amateur, if I want to know how an insect is really made (anatomy), I'll look for an "entomological" view like this one. That's the reason of my support, but it is only the poor opinion of a non-specialist !!--Jebulon (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MVR Scores: 
1. Bug July 2010-2.jpg: 0  
2. Thomas Bresson - Coreus marginatus-2 (by).jpg: 0 (current VI within same scope)
3. Coreus marginatus qtl1.jpg: 0 
4. Coreus marginatus Global.jpg: +2 <--
=>
File:Bug July 2010-2.jpg: Declined.
File:Thomas Bresson - Coreus marginatus-2 (by).jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former.
File:Coreus marginatus qtl1.jpg: Declined.
File:Coreus marginatus Global.jpg: Promoted. <--
--Myrabella (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Dolichotis patagonum (Patagonian Mara)[edit]

   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2010-08-21 11:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Dolichotis patagonum (Patagonian Mara)
Used in:
Patagonian Mara, es:Dolichotis patagonum
Yes, I know... It just seemed to me that this one was the most suitable for a VI, but I reckon I didn't spend hours parsing the pictures. --Eusebius (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MVR Scores: 
1. Dolichotis patagonum -Temaiken Zoo-8a-1c.jpg: -1 <--
2. Mara Thoiry 19803.jpg: +1
=>
File:Dolichotis patagonum -Temaiken Zoo-8a-1c.jpg: Declined. <--
File:Mara Thoiry 19803.jpg: Promoted. 
--Myrabella (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2010-08-22 14:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Dolichotis patagonum (Patagonian Mara)
Reason:
suggested by Archaeodontosaurus. -- Eusebius (talk)
MVR Scores: 
1. Dolichotis patagonum -Temaiken Zoo-8a-1c.jpg: -1
2. Mara Thoiry 19803.jpg: +1 <--
=>
File:Dolichotis patagonum -Temaiken Zoo-8a-1c.jpg: Declined.
File:Mara Thoiry 19803.jpg: Promoted. <--
--Myrabella (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Macaca mulatta[edit]

   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Yann (talk) on 2010-08-26 07:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Macaca mulatta

 Support This one seems to me the best --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] 

MVR Scores: 
1. Rhesus Macaque, Red Fort, Agra.jpg: +1 <--
2. Rhesus Macaque, Red Fort, Agra, India.jpg: 0
3. Monkey yawning 1.jpg: 0
=>
File:Rhesus Macaque, Red Fort, Agra.jpg: Promoted. <--
File:Rhesus Macaque, Red Fort, Agra, India.jpg: Declined. 
File:Monkey yawning 1.jpg: Declined.
--Myrabella (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Rhesus Macaque, Red Fort, Agra.jpg: 0 <--
2. Rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta mulatta), male, Gokarna.jpg: +2
=>
File:Rhesus Macaque, Red Fort, Agra.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <--
File:Rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta mulatta), male, Gokarna.jpg: Promoted.
--A1Cafel (talk) 04:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
Yann (talk) on 2010-08-26 07:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Macaca mulatta

MVR Scores: 

1. Rhesus Macaque, Red Fort, Agra.jpg: +1 
2. Rhesus Macaque, Red Fort, Agra, India.jpg: 0 <--
3. Monkey yawning 1.jpg: 0
=>
File:Rhesus Macaque, Red Fort, Agra.jpg: Promoted.
File:Rhesus Macaque, Red Fort, Agra, India.jpg: Declined. <--
File:Monkey yawning 1.jpg: Declined.
--Myrabella (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
Yann (talk) on 2010-08-26 07:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Macaca mulatta

 Comment I prefer the other images, with a more "neutral" attitude, but this one also fulfills the criteria (good quality and geocoded). Yann (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] 

MVR Scores: 
1. Rhesus Macaque, Red Fort, Agra.jpg: +1 
2. Rhesus Macaque, Red Fort, Agra, India.jpg: 0
3. Monkey yawning 1.jpg: 0 <--
=>
File:Rhesus Macaque, Red Fort, Agra.jpg: Promoted.
File:Rhesus Macaque, Red Fort, Agra, India.jpg: Declined. 
File:Monkey yawning 1.jpg: Declined. <--
--Myrabella (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Ancient Roman theatre in Palmyra[edit]

   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2010-08-27 08:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Ancient Roman theatre in Palmyra		 
Scores: 
1. Palmyre - théâtre pano.jpg: 0 <--
2. Palmyra theater02(js).jpg: +2
=>
File:Palmyre - théâtre pano.jpg: Declined. <--
File:Palmyra theater02(js).jpg: Promoted.
--Ikar.us (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Myrabella (talk) on 2010-08-27 16:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Ancient Roman theatre in Palmyra
Reason:
At the review size, clearer view of the theater itself IMO. -- Myrabella (talk)
Scores: 
1. Palmyre - théâtre pano.jpg: 0
2. Palmyra theater02(js).jpg: +2 <--
=>
File:Palmyre - théâtre pano.jpg: Declined.
File:Palmyra theater02(js).jpg: Promoted. <--
--Ikar.us (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Jaguar D-Type[edit]

   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2010-08-23 22:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Jaguar D-Type
Reason:
best in scope IMO. Not in exhibition, green like a Jag must be, all the profile of the "long nose". -- Jebulon (talk)
Scores: 
1. Jaguar D-type Paris 2010.jpg: +1 <--
2. 1956JaguarD-TypeLongNose.jpg: +2
=>
File:Jaguar D-type Paris 2010.jpg: Declined. <--
File:1956JaguarD-TypeLongNose.jpg: Promoted.
--Ikar.us (talk) 21:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Myrabella (talk) on 2010-08-27 20:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Jaguar D-Type
Reason:
This image depicts a Jaguar D-Type in action (it recalls that this model was a race car), including its oval "mouth", and the vertical stabiliser behind the driver's head. -- Myrabella (talk)
  •  Support Agree with Myrabella. Yann (talk) 04:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Of course I saw this one when I proposed the other... I prefer the green, because... it is green ! Furthermore, the green one doesn't need a recall as a car race, it looks so (see the white circle for the race number), and the vertical stabiliser is visible too, as it is behind the driver's head. A full profile view looks better to me, because it shows better the size, but it's unsolvable matter of taste. The blue one could be the best in a scope "Jaguar D-Type in action", maybe, but it suffers of motion blur too hardly to be a good competitor. At the end, its only advantage is :" look : it rolls ". (But the one in Paris rolls too, I saw it and spoke with his happy owner.)--Jebulon (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Depicting a running car isn't the only difference. Another one is that this image shows the front of the car, with its central oval hole. You could answer that the slender back is important too :-) --Myrabella (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Yes I could ! I don't understand why this "central oval hole" is so important. This is only an aeration hole, like in all other cars... ;)--Jebulon (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scores: 
1. Jaguar D-type Paris 2010.jpg: +1
2. 1956JaguarD-TypeLongNose.jpg: +2 <--
=>
File:Jaguar D-type Paris 2010.jpg: Declined.
File:1956JaguarD-TypeLongNose.jpg: Promoted. <--
--Ikar.us (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Dilma Rousseff[edit]

   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Missionary on 21:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scope:
Dilma Rousseff
Reason:
This is the current MV picture of Dilma Rousseff. I believe it has been superseded by her official portrait. See also: Previous reviews -- Missionary

 Info -- This is the present VI, being challenged by the other pictures in the MVR. Please add new comments and votes below. 

Scores: 
1. Dilma Rousseff official.png: +0
2. Dilma_Rousseff_2010.jpg: +0 (current VI within same scope) <--
3. Dilma Rousseff - foto oficial 2011-01-09.jpg: +2 
=>
File:Dilma Rousseff official.png: Declined.
File:Dilma_Rousseff_2010.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <--
File:Dilma Rousseff - foto oficial 2011-01-09.jpg: Promoted.
--George Chernilevsky talk 19:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
Missionary on 2010-10-12 18:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Dilma Rousseff
Reason:
I'm attempting to revive this discussion, as I believe we have a better image of Dilma since this file was given VI status, namely, Dilma Rousseff 2010.jpg. In the other picture, she's facing the camera directly, rather than looking upwards, and is smiling. In addition, here she's wearing a wig, instead of her current hairstyle. This one's inferior, in my opinion. See also: Previous reviews -- Missionary

 Info -- This is the present VI, being challenged by the other picture in the MVR. Please add new comments and votes below.

 Oppose - Missionary (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, you cannot vote. --Eusebius (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MVR Scores: 
1. Dilma Rousseff 2010.jpg: +1
2. Dilma Rousseff 2009.jpg: -2 (current VI within same scope) <--
3. Dilma (2009).jpg: -2
=>
File:Dilma Rousseff 2010.jpg: Promoted.
File:Dilma Rousseff 2009.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <--
File:Dilma (2009).jpg: Declined.
--Myrabella (talk) 20:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Court Pharmacy building in Karlsruhe, Germany[edit]

   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Ikar.us (talk) on 2010-09-07 00:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Court Pharmacy building in Karlsruhe, Germany
Reason:
A well-known and well-preserved Art Nouveau building by Hermann Billing. -- Ikar.us (talk)

 Comment I miss the ground floor with the pharmacy. Why is it cut off? Llez (talk) 05:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't own a sufficient wide-angle lens. --Ikar.us (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Try taking several picture and merge them into a panorama. If necessary, help is always at hand :-). Lycaon (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but the facades have a pronounced 3D structure. I can't imagine how a stitched image could look natural. --Ikar.us (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shop-windows, pedestrians and parked bicycles aren't very relevant anyway. I took the image because in Works of Hermann Billing an art nouveau building was requested. --Ikar.us (talk) 09:44, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Question Why did you chose "Court pharmacy" as scope, if the ground floor with the Court Pharmacy is cut off? Wouldn't be "Buildings of Hermann Billing, Kaiserstr. 201 in Karlsruhe" or something like that better? --Llez (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The building is known by its name. You may argue that the name should be in German then. The court pharmacy isn't in the ground floor, it's in history. There's no court since 1918. The pharmacist who rents the shop today has just kept the historic name. And the pharmacy does and did extend to the first floor. The low intermediate storey behind the arch windows is the place where the drugs were being made and are stored today.

What I really miss are the ornaments on the right side. I hope for a sunny sunday morning... --Ikar.us (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, the golden cross is on this side, and should really be visible. --Ikar.us (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scores: 
1. Karlsruhe Hofapotheke.jpg: -1 <--
2. Karlsruhe Hofapotheke ganz.jpg: +1
=>
File:Karlsruhe Hofapotheke.jpg: Declined. <--
File:Karlsruhe Hofapotheke ganz.jpg: Promoted.
--Ikar.us (talk) 01:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Ikar.us (talk) on 2010-09-09 23:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Court Pharmacy building in Karlsruhe, Germany
  •  Info Changed file, enhanced. --Ikar.us (talk) 14:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support OK to me now, all criteria met. Scope OK after reading (which has given opportunity to learn a bit more about Art Nouveau architecture in Karlsruhe). This image shows better that it is an "angle building", with different ornaments and windows on the two facades; in addition, the bottom isn't crop here. It's a detail, but I like the glittering golden lines. Seem part of the original ornementation? --Myrabella (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] 
Scores: 
1. Karlsruhe Hofapotheke.jpg: -1
2. Karlsruhe Hofapotheke ganz.jpg: +1 <--
=>
File:Karlsruhe Hofapotheke.jpg: Declined.
File:Karlsruhe Hofapotheke ganz.jpg: Promoted. <--
--Ikar.us (talk) 01:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Ischnura elegans, copula[edit]

   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Alvesgaspar (talk) on 2010-09-04 18:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Ischnura elegans (Blue-tailed damselfly), copula		 
MVR Scores: 
1. Damselflies August 2010-1.jpg: +1 <--
2. Ischnura elegans qtl3.jpg: +2 
=>
File:Damselflies August 2010-1.jpg: Declined. <--
File:Ischnura elegans qtl3.jpg: Promoted.
--Myrabella (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Quartl (talk) on 2010-09-09 08:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Ischnura elegans (Blue-tailed damselfly), copula
Reason:
see opposite image -- Quartl (talk)

 Support Best in scope, criteria met --George Chernilevsky talk 11:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] 

MVR Scores: 
1. Damselflies August 2010-1.jpg: +1
2. Ischnura elegans qtl3.jpg: +2 <--
=>
File:Damselflies August 2010-1.jpg: Declined.
File:Ischnura elegans qtl3.jpg: Promoted. <--
--Myrabella (talk) 21:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Enceladus[edit]

   

View opposition
Nominated by:
The High Fin Sperm Whale on 2010-09-09 00:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Enceladus
Used in:
en:Enceladus (moon), el:Εγκέλαδος (δορυφόρος), fa:انسلادوس, ga:Enceladus, ja:静水圧平衡にある太陽系天体の一覧, ko:엔셀라두스 (위성) lt:Enceladas (palydovas), lv:Encelāds (pavadonis, sk:Enceladus (mesiac), vi:Enceladus (vệ tinh), zh:土卫二
Scores: 
1. PIA08409 North Polar Region of Enceladus.jpg: 0 <--
2. Enceladusstripes cassini.jpg: +2
=>
File:PIA08409 North Polar Region of Enceladus.jpg: Declined. <--
File:Enceladusstripes cassini.jpg: Promoted.
--Ikar.us (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Ikar.us (talk) on 2010-09-16 18:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Endeladus (moon of Saturn)
Reason:
larger part of the surface, in coulours, with explanations -- Ikar.us (talk)
Scores: 
1. PIA08409 North Polar Region of Enceladus.jpg: 0
2. Enceladusstripes cassini.jpg: +2 <--
=>
File:PIA08409 North Polar Region of Enceladus.jpg: Declined.
File:Enceladusstripes cassini.jpg: Promoted. <--
--Ikar.us (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
}}

Castle of Varaždin[edit]

   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Pudelek (talk) on 2010-09-14 20:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Castle of Varaždin		 
MVR Scores: 
1. Varaždin - stari grad.jpg: 0 <--
2. Stari grad Varaždin.JPG: +3 
=>
File:Varaždin - stari grad.jpg: Declined. <--
File:Stari grad Varaždin.JPG: Promoted.
--Myrabella (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff (talk) on 2010-09-17 11:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Castle of Varaždin
Reason:
As if this one gives us more information as a whole and towards the long (main) elevation. -- MrPanyGoff (talk)
MVR Scores: 
1. Varaždin - stari grad.jpg: 0 
2. Stari grad Varaždin.JPG: +3 <--
=>
File:Varaždin - stari grad.jpg: Declined.
File:Stari grad Varaždin.JPG: Promoted. <--
--Myrabella (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Klaudia Ciesla[edit]

   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Spongie555 (talk) on 2010-09-20 02:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Klaudia Ciesla
Reason:
Very good picture of showing her model since she is a model. I think it should be exempt from geocoding because its a staged shot and we dont know where it was taken -- Spongie555 (talk)
I actually dont know why is like that. Probably the creator of the scope messed up Spongie555 (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose - Per ikar.us and Lycaon --Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 18:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Oppose I wonder that if all the people here are so sensitive to notability of the scopes then what is this silence? Or maybe there are different rules for different people or topics. In my view this is a very strange idea this person to have its own scope. Both photos can compete only for scope - “European young models”.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look at this image. I happened to recognize the presenter - only because I observe COM:VI, and he was promoted in Commons:Valued image candidates/BACHCHAN Amitabh 03-24x30-2009.jpg. The actress is from Europe, went to India and casually learned Hindi to take part in his show. Who is more notable? --Ikar.us (talk) 20:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If someone is notable in the photo you give as example I think that it is Amitabh Bachchan and that's for sure, imo. The girl presented here is just one of the thousands girls that are favoured today by someone behind the scenes. Tomorow there will be another girl in this screen. It is the face and some other physical parts that are used here. The name of the girl is not important at all and will be forgotten after a year or five unless she become some high-standing person's wife, imo.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 09:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Notability is relative, was said in the presenter's promotion. I'd compare him to e.g. Peter Rapp. The local audience in India is hundred times bigger than in Austria, but both are local celebrities. The girl seems the only non-Indian participant in that major Indian TV show. This I regard as a notable oddity. (And about physical parts - Amitabh Bachchan's success is credited to his very masculine voice...) --Ikar.us (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scores: 
1. Klaudia Cieśla 1419.jpg: -3
2. Klaudia Cieśla 5439.jpg: -2 
=>
File:Klaudia Cieśla 1419.jpg: Declined
File:Klaudia Cieśla 5439.jpg: Declined.
--George Chernilevsky talk 07:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
Spongie555 (talk) on 2010-09-22 03:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Klaudia Ciesla
Reason:
Good picture of her modeling. Like in this nomination of her it should be exempt of geocoding beacuse it is in an unknown location. -- Spongie555 (talk)

There is already a nomination for this scope. If you dislike it, you may open a MVR. --Ikar.us (talk) 08:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think an oppose should not be based on beacuse you don't think the person deserves a scope. Spongie555 (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? This is a practice in the VI project. See the nominations above.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 05:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment For a person as for a church, reviewers are supposed to look at the notability. This person has an article on its own in WP in 14 languages; in most cases they are not stubs and they contain references (see the article in French for example). --Myrabella (talk) 06:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I saw that there is an article in WP but this means nothing. Do you know how many articles in WP are with disputable rights to be in the encyclopedia? There are thousands of them. This is a big problem for WP - resolving what is ok and what's not. By the way, when I saw the article about this girl I started consideration to nominate it for deletion in accordance with the rules there.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, a first deletion request has been uncessful on en:WP (seems to have been violently disputed). --Myrabella (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The result was No consensus. So, I think that this supports my reservations.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 11:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion has been discussed on de:WP too. --Myrabella (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scores: 
1. Klaudia Cieśla 1419.jpg: -3
2. Klaudia Cieśla 5439.jpg: -2 
=>
File:Klaudia Cieśla 1419.jpg: Declined
File:Klaudia Cieśla 5439.jpg: Declined.
--George Chernilevsky talk 07:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Closed_most_valued_reviews/2010/09&oldid=44736672"