Commons:Closed most valued reviews/2011/04

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

Closed most valued reviews/2011/04

Al Khazneh (Petra)[edit]

   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Bgag (talk) on 2011-03-23 20:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Al Khazneh (Petra)
Reason:
Not an easy choice but I think it's the best one. And there is no tourist in the picture. -- Bgag (talk)

 Comment Yes, it is not easy at all. First of all not always people are disadvantage of the shot. For instance, in this photo they are distracting indeed but in this one they actually add scale and strengthen the excitement of the view, imo. So to say, they make the subject real and this is very important for Al Khazneh. Second, probably while attempting to correct the perspective you deform very much the proportion of the building and now it is almost square in shape. Since the proportion is almost everything in the architecture this is a big disadvantage of the nominated photo, somehow it misleads the audience. Anyway ;) I have a presentiment of a long and hard MVR with this subject.--MrPanyGoff 07:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

MVR Scores: 
1. Al Khazneh.jpg: 0 <--
2. Al Khazneh Petra edit.jpg: 0
3. Al Khazneh Petra edit 2.jpg: +1
=>
File:Al Khazneh.jpg: Declined. <--
File:Al Khazneh Petra edit.jpg: Declined. 
File:Al Khazneh Petra edit 2.jpg: Promoted.
--Myrabella (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-03-25 17:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Al Khazneh (Petra)

MVR Scores: 

1. Al Khazneh.jpg: 0
2. Al Khazneh Petra edit.jpg: 0 <--
3. Al Khazneh Petra edit 2.jpg: +1
=>
File:Al Khazneh.jpg: Declined. 
File:Al Khazneh Petra edit.jpg: Declined. <--
File:Al Khazneh Petra edit 2.jpg: Promoted.
--Myrabella (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-03-25 17:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Al Khazneh (Petra)		 
MVR Scores: 
1. Al Khazneh.jpg: 0
2. Al Khazneh Petra edit.jpg: 0 
3. Al Khazneh Petra edit 2.jpg: +1 <--
=>
File:Al Khazneh.jpg: Declined. 
File:Al Khazneh Petra edit.jpg: Declined.
File:Al Khazneh Petra edit 2.jpg: Promoted. <--
--Myrabella (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Silk Tomb (Petra)[edit]

   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Bgag (talk) on 2011-03-19 16:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Silk Tomb (Petra)

 Comment Isn't the side part important? File:Silk Tomb, Petra 01.jpg--MrPanyGoff 17:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 

1. Silk Tomb, Petra.jpg: +0
2. Silk Tomb, Petra 01.jpg: +2 
=>
File:Silk Tomb, Petra.jpg: Declined.
File:Silk Tomb, Petra 01.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 10:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Bgag (talk) on 2011-03-25 17:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Silk Tomb (Petra)

 Support - OK, I support this as most illustrative, imo.--MrPanyGoff 21:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 

1. Silk Tomb, Petra.jpg: +0
2. Silk Tomb, Petra 01.jpg: +2 
=>
File:Silk Tomb, Petra.jpg: Declined.
File:Silk Tomb, Petra 01.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 10:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Palais du parlement de Bretagne (exterior)[edit]

   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2011-03-26 20:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Palais du parlement de Bretagne (exterior)

Scores: 

1. ParlementDeBretagne.jpg: +0
2. Rennes - Parlement de Bretagne - 20080706.jpg: +0 
3. Rennes - Parlement de Bretagne.jpg: +2 
=>
File:ParlementDeBretagne.jpg: Declined.
File:Rennes - Parlement de Bretagne - 20080706.jpg: Declined.
File:Rennes - Parlement de Bretagne.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 10:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2011-03-26 20:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Palais du parlement de Bretagne (exterior)

Scores: 

1. ParlementDeBretagne.jpg: +0
2. Rennes - Parlement de Bretagne - 20080706.jpg: +0 
3. Rennes - Parlement de Bretagne.jpg: +2 
=>
File:ParlementDeBretagne.jpg: Declined.
File:Rennes - Parlement de Bretagne - 20080706.jpg: Declined.
File:Rennes - Parlement de Bretagne.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 10:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2011-03-26 20:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Palais du parlement de Bretagne (exterior)
  •  Question I am ready to support, but shouldn't the scope be an "(exterior)"subscope, as there are also images in the category depicting the interior, which seems rather notable according to the :fr:WP article and to the "Monument historique" note? --Myrabella (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK let's do that. --Eusebius (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scores: 
1. ParlementDeBretagne.jpg: +0
2. Rennes - Parlement de Bretagne - 20080706.jpg: +0 
3. Rennes - Parlement de Bretagne.jpg: +2 
=>
File:ParlementDeBretagne.jpg: Declined.
File:Rennes - Parlement de Bretagne - 20080706.jpg: Declined.
File:Rennes - Parlement de Bretagne.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 10:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Culloden Viaduct[edit]

   

View promotion
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-03-27 20:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Culloden Viaduct

 Comment Difficult choice. Very good panoramic view compared with very good aerial view. Both of them presents the entire structure. Both are very informative...--MrPanyGoff 21:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

Scores: 
1. Culloden Viaduct01 2007-08-22.jpg: +2
2. Nairn railway viaduct near Culloden - geograph.org.uk - 1801643.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Culloden Viaduct01 2007-08-22.jpg: Promoted.
File:Nairn railway viaduct near Culloden - geograph.org.uk - 1801643.jpg: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 11:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-03-27 20:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Culloden Viaduct

Scores: 

1. Culloden Viaduct01 2007-08-22.jpg: +2
2. Nairn railway viaduct near Culloden - geograph.org.uk - 1801643.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Culloden Viaduct01 2007-08-22.jpg: Promoted.
File:Nairn railway viaduct near Culloden - geograph.org.uk - 1801643.jpg: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 11:04, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Bitola[edit]

   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Mile (talk) on 2011-03-17 18:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Bitola
Reason:
Best pic representing Bitola. -- Mile (talk)

 Comment In this scope I think that I would support this panoramic view. As for the nominated image I think that Bitola Promenade is a quite acceptable scope where it should compete with 5 more good photos collected in this category. ;)--MrPanyGoff 10:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • The scope is not narrow at all, imo. For now these images are mixed in the topic Cities and Towns but in the future should be rearranged in their own topic: Streets and Squares. Here are examples of promoted photos in this topic: one, two, three, four, five, six. Let's see some other opinions.--MrPanyGoff 10:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scores: 
1. BitolskiKorzo.JPG: -1
2. BitolaPanorama.jpg: +1 
=>
File:BitolskiKorzo.JPG: Declined.
File:BitolaPanorama.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 18:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-03-21 08:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Bitola
Reason:
Beautiful quality panorama of the town with information about the surrounding geographical relief. -- MrPanyGoff

 Support Best pic representing the city of Bitola, according to the scope.--Jebulon (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

Scores: 
1. BitolskiKorzo.JPG: -1
2. BitolaPanorama.jpg: +1 
=>
File:BitolskiKorzo.JPG: Declined.
File:BitolaPanorama.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 18:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Hans Christian Andersen[edit]

   

View promotion
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-04-02 18:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Hans Christian Andersen
Reason:
I think that this is the most representative portrait of the writer - good quality, good resolution and good restoration as a whole. Studio shot that's why not geocoded. -- MrPanyGoff

I'm not fully convinced by the so called restoration. I prefer this version of the same pose. The resolution is not so high, but the picture looks better to me. Furthermore, the autograph of Andersen adds a lot to the value IMO. Thoughts about ? --Jebulon (talk) 13:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually these are reproductions of one and the same portrait with different colour balance. I nominated this because it is somehow clean and with more real Black&White balance but I would accept the other version too. As for the script below I'm not sure what is it actually. Why do you think that it contains Andersen' autograph?--MrPanyGoff 20:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] 
MVR Scores: 
1. HCA by Thora Hallager 1869.jpg: +2 <--
2. HCA 1869 by Thora Hallager.jpg: +1 
=>
File:HCA by Thora Hallager 1869.jpg: Promoted. <--
File:HCA 1869 by Thora Hallager.jpg: Declined.
--Myrabella (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-04-06 18:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Hans Christian Andersen		 
MVR Scores: 
1. HCA by Thora Hallager 1869.jpg: +2
2. HCA 1869 by Thora Hallager.jpg: +1 <--
=>
File:HCA by Thora Hallager 1869.jpg: Promoted.
File:HCA 1869 by Thora Hallager.jpg: Declined. <--
--Myrabella (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Rubus spectabilis (Salmonberry), fruit[edit]

   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Walter Siegmund (talk) on 2011-04-04 04:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Rubus spectabilis (Salmonberry), fruit
Reason:
Used in five articles, this image illustrates the yellow to reddish drupelets that are notable and distinguishing features of this species. -- Walter Siegmund (talk)

 Support I will not be chosen this one, but as the pictures are of you, I trust you. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

Scores: 
1. Rubus spectabilis 1565.JPG: +0
2. Rubus spectabilis 1564.JPG: +3 
=>
File:Rubus spectabilis 1565.JPG: Declined.
File:Rubus spectabilis 1564.JPG: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 13:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Walter Siegmund (talk) on 2011-04-07 04:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Rubus spectabilis (Salmonberry), fruit
Reason:
Suggested by Archaeodontosaurus.[1] I think s/he may be correct. -- Walter Siegmund (talk)

 Support Best in scope for me. Thank you to Walter for fair play. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Support That's the game. Anyway, Walter is the author of the two competing photos :-); I fond this one more illustrative, me too. Side  Question : would you have a sound reference of the use of that fruit into pemmican? The en:WP article about salmonberry tells about it, but not the article about pemmican, and that source (page 1 page 2) seems to say that salmonberries were used fresh rather than dried. --Myrabella (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected the article content based on Pojar and Mackinnon. Thank you. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:11, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scores: 
1. Rubus spectabilis 1565.JPG: +0
2. Rubus spectabilis 1564.JPG: +3 
=>
File:Rubus spectabilis 1565.JPG: Declined.
File:Rubus spectabilis 1564.JPG: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 13:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Haile Gebrselassie[edit]

   

View opposition
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-04-04 14:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Haile Gebrselassie
Reason:
Another hard decision. As if this one is the most representative. Good quality, face is well visible. -- MrPanyGoff

 Comment - It seems that no one is attracted by this Ethiopian athlete who is widely considered one of the greatest distance runners in history.--MrPanyGoff 18:00, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment We cannot see his legs in any of the nominated photos... --Myrabella (talk) 20:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think that we have to see his legs? Yes, there are some opinions about representation of the sportsmen but I think that the face is always much more important. After all, when a good photo of the entire body appears in commons then a MVR can be open ;) If you refer to this photo (here) it is too blurry, imo. For now, I find these three images best in the scope.--MrPanyGoff 09:11, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scores: 
1. Haile-newyork-cropforfocus.jpg: +0
2. 20090601 Haile Gebrselassie.jpg: +1 
3. Haile Gebrselassie Dubai 2010.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Haile-newyork-cropforfocus.jpg: Declined.
File:20090601 Haile Gebrselassie.jpg: Promoted.
File:Haile Gebrselassie Dubai 2010.jpg: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 07:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
Commons:Valued image candidates/Haile Gebrselassie en 2009.jpg

View opposition
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-04-04 14:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Haile Gebrselassie

Scores: 

1. Haile-newyork-cropforfocus.jpg: +0
2. 20090601 Haile Gebrselassie.jpg: +1 
3. Haile Gebrselassie Dubai 2010.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Haile-newyork-cropforfocus.jpg: Declined.
File:20090601 Haile Gebrselassie.jpg: Promoted.
File:Haile Gebrselassie Dubai 2010.jpg: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 07:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Turning Torso, Malmö[edit]

   

View opposition
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-04-05 20:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Turning Torso, Malmö
  •  Comment File:Turning Torso 3.jpg is the most used image in sister projects; file:Turning Torso 2.jpg is maybe more vertical (I haven't check). The nominated image gives an idea of the surroundings; but as it was a new residential area, they may have changed a lot since 2005. + Comment about scope: you can drop the "exterior" subscope IMO: this a skyscraper is notable and characteristic by its external shape; I am not sure that the interior would be so identifiable and worth a specific subscope; moreover, there isn't any inside view in Commons for the moment. --Myrabella (talk) 16:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scores: 
1. Turning Torso 1.jpg: +0
2. Turning Torso 2.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Turning Torso 1.jpg: Declined.
File:Turning Torso 2.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 17:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-04-09 15:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Turning Torso, Malmö		 
Scores: 
1. Turning Torso 1.jpg: +0
2. Turning Torso 2.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Turning Torso 1.jpg: Declined.
File:Turning Torso 2.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 17:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Trithemis arteriosa, female[edit]

   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Quartl (talk) on 2011-04-05 05:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Trithemis arteriosa (Red-veined Dropwing), Female
Reason:
Only image in scope, except for the companion image which I believe is somewhat less valuable. -- Quartl (talk)
Scores: 
1. Trithemis arteriosa qtl1.jpg: -1
2. Trithemis arteriosa qtl3.jpg: +3 
=>
File:Trithemis arteriosa qtl1.jpg: Declined.
File:Trithemis arteriosa qtl3.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 08:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Quartl (talk) on 2011-04-10 07:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Trithemis arteriosa (Red-veined Dropwing), Female
Reason:
I'm truly sorry, but I just found and uploaded this image which I think is more valuable since it is shows more of the animal, depicts more wing detail and is slightly more crisp. -- Quartl (talk)
Scores: 
1. Trithemis arteriosa qtl1.jpg: -1
2. Trithemis arteriosa qtl3.jpg: +3 
=>
File:Trithemis arteriosa qtl1.jpg: Declined.
File:Trithemis arteriosa qtl3.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 08:19, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Laser light show[edit]

   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Grand-Duc (talk) on 2011-04-07 14:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Laser light show
Reason:
I think that this photograph is a valuable depiction of a laser light show. I put it in competition with the second and third candidate. -- Grand-Duc (talk)

 Comment These kind of competitions, as a rule, are placed in the section below called a MVR (Most Valued Reviews). Could you please move all the nominations within the scope there? I can do it for you if you experience some difficulties. --MrPanyGoff 18:56, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Furthermore, I would like to suggest more accurate scope because now it is too broad. I calculated more than a hundred images in this category and its subcategories. It will be very hard for the reviewers to assess the photos.--MrPanyGoff 19:08, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll change that (beforehand, I misunderstood somehow the rules, thought that there must be already a VI in the scope for a competition...). As for the scope: here, it is only for laser light shows, not for images depicting e.g. a symphony of lights (I guess that there are other light sources than lasers in this kind of "symphonical" shows) or the Klangwelle Bonn, so, when assessing my candidates, there are only 37 and not a three-digit number of images to compare. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:26, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The scope seems OK to me (however, at the singular would be better IMO; the VI will be the most illustrative example of what a laser light show is). Some previous case occured where an image has been assessed despite bunchs of images to look over : ewamples 1 or 2. It's demanding for reviewers but not impossible. --Myrabella (talk) 19:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I simply took the name of the category for the scope... Is there any need of changing the title of the wikilink or to put a cat rename request at the cat discussion? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 19:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No need of a cat discussion; if you agree, you can just adjust the scope format like this: Laser light show. --Myrabella (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done... :-) Grand-Duc (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I tend to prefer that one, where the rays are less fuzzy : File:Vizual pokazy laserowe 1.jpg. It can be geocoded I guess: I found that image on the website of the performer too, in the section "Andrzejki w Klubie APOLLO" of that page. Side info (to other reviewers): note that "It is perfectly possible to oppose a nomination on the grounds that another Commons image is 'more valuable', even if that image could not itself be a VI candidate (eg because it is not geocoded)", seeCommons:Valued image value. --Myrabella (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Scores: 
1. Lasershow Rostocker Lichtwoche 1.JPG: +0
2. Lasershow Rostocker Lichtwoche 2.JPG: +0 
3. Lasershow Rostocker Lichtwoche 6.JPG: +0 
4. Vizual pokazy laserowe 1.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Lasershow Rostocker Lichtwoche 1.JPG: Declined.
File:Lasershow Rostocker Lichtwoche 2.JPG: Declined.
File:Lasershow Rostocker Lichtwoche 6.JPG: Declined.
File:Vizual pokazy laserowe 1.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 11:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
Grand-Duc (talk) on 2011-04-07 14:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Laser light show
Reason:
I think that this photograph is a valuable depiction of a laser light show. I put it in competition with the first and third candidate. -- Grand-Duc (talk)

Scores: 

1. Lasershow Rostocker Lichtwoche 1.JPG: +0
2. Lasershow Rostocker Lichtwoche 2.JPG: +0 
3. Lasershow Rostocker Lichtwoche 6.JPG: +0 
4. Vizual pokazy laserowe 1.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Lasershow Rostocker Lichtwoche 1.JPG: Declined.
File:Lasershow Rostocker Lichtwoche 2.JPG: Declined.
File:Lasershow Rostocker Lichtwoche 6.JPG: Declined.
File:Vizual pokazy laserowe 1.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 11:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
Grand-Duc (talk) on 2011-04-07 14:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Laser light show
Reason:

I think that this photograph is a valuable depiction of a laser light show. I put it in competition with the first and second candidate. 

Scores: 
1. Lasershow Rostocker Lichtwoche 1.JPG: +0
2. Lasershow Rostocker Lichtwoche 2.JPG: +0 
3. Lasershow Rostocker Lichtwoche 6.JPG: +0 
4. Vizual pokazy laserowe 1.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Lasershow Rostocker Lichtwoche 1.JPG: Declined.
File:Lasershow Rostocker Lichtwoche 2.JPG: Declined.
File:Lasershow Rostocker Lichtwoche 6.JPG: Declined.
File:Vizual pokazy laserowe 1.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 11:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC) -- Grand-Duc (talk)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Myrabella (talk) on 2011-04-13 12:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Laser light show
Reason:
I find this one more illustrative, the rays being less fuzzy. Geocoded using the information given on that page, thanks to user:Ikar.us. -- Myrabella (talk)

 Support - It is a crazy thing to choose the better image in this category but finally I take this one.--MrPanyGoff 10:58, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

Scores: 
1. Lasershow Rostocker Lichtwoche 1.JPG: +0
2. Lasershow Rostocker Lichtwoche 2.JPG: +0 
3. Lasershow Rostocker Lichtwoche 6.JPG: +0 
4. Vizual pokazy laserowe 1.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Lasershow Rostocker Lichtwoche 1.JPG: Declined.
File:Lasershow Rostocker Lichtwoche 2.JPG: Declined.
File:Lasershow Rostocker Lichtwoche 6.JPG: Declined.
File:Vizual pokazy laserowe 1.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 11:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Flatiron Building, New York[edit]

   

View opposition
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-04-16 16:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Flatiron Building, New York

 SupportThis one is OK, and at least well described-knowing in what city bldng. is. --Mile (talk) 20:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

Scores: 
1. Edificio Fuller (Flatiron) edit.jpg: +1
2. Edificio Fuller (Flatiron) en 2010 desde el Empire State crop boxin.jpg: +2
3. Flatiron 1.JPG: +0 
=>
File:Edificio Fuller (Flatiron) edit.jpg: Declined.
File:Edificio Fuller (Flatiron) en 2010 desde el Empire State crop boxin.jpg: Promoted.
File:Flatiron 1.JPG: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 21:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-04-16 16:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Flatiron Building, New York		 
Scores: 
1. Edificio Fuller (Flatiron) edit.jpg: +1
2. Edificio Fuller (Flatiron) en 2010 desde el Empire State crop boxin.jpg: +2
3. Flatiron 1.JPG: +0 
=>
File:Edificio Fuller (Flatiron) edit.jpg: Declined.
File:Edificio Fuller (Flatiron) en 2010 desde el Empire State crop boxin.jpg: Promoted.
File:Flatiron 1.JPG: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 21:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-04-16 16:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Flatiron Building, New York

Scores: 

1. Edificio Fuller (Flatiron) edit.jpg: +1
2. Edificio Fuller (Flatiron) en 2010 desde el Empire State crop boxin.jpg: +2
3. Flatiron 1.JPG: +0 
=>
File:Edificio Fuller (Flatiron) edit.jpg: Declined.
File:Edificio Fuller (Flatiron) en 2010 desde el Empire State crop boxin.jpg: Promoted.
File:Flatiron 1.JPG: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 21:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Suq Aftimos[edit]

   

View
Nominated by:
Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 18:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC) on 2009-12-19 17:56 (UTC)[reply]
Scope:
Suq Aftimos
  •  Oppose The non-existence of the category (crit. 6) doesn't help finding out what we are talking about, so I'm just unable to review properly. Also, please add links in the scope only when the target exists. --Eusebius (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Oh yes, I remember, it's the continuation of a discussion opened in a previous review for another image. Suq Aftimos is the western part of the Muristan, which is an area in the Christian Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. The Muristan has been divided in two parts in the past, a German eastern part (with the Lutheran Church of the Redeemer) and a Greek western one, consisting of a bazaar, Suq Aftimos (see en:Muristan for more details). In the nominated image, we can read "Suq Aftimos" on the street plate. Berthold's opinion would be useful here. --Myrabella (talk) 23:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now I would tend to add "narrow scope" as a reason for my initial opposition. I also find a bit strange that the previous MVR candidates should suddently be deemed unworthy of consideration. An explanation, at least, would be nice. --Eusebius (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. Iv'e removed the link to the non-existent category. The previous nominations were not re-opened because they haven't been changed since the last nomination. Do you believe I should open a MVR again? Anyway, I don't think the scope is too narrow. Plus, this claim was already discussed in the previous nomination, here. Sorry for not linking to it. --Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 17:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate still not properly categorized... The solution was not to hide the non-existent category, it was to create it! --Eusebius (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition removed. --Eusebius (talk) 18:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I', wondering why there are so few people on the street. The Exifdata say the time was 8:44 but at the shadow you can see it was much later. Perhaps the camera was put on UTC? Than it would be 11:44 local time. Additionally there are a lot of technical problems. But it shows the curios portal, the shops and the street restaurants, you can read the sign on the portal the Israeli flag shows where you are. I'm not completly satisfied, it is not the most valued photograph one can make but it is the most valued in Commons. So ok for now. --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment - I've chacked the camera, the time is indeed UTC --Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 18:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scores: 
1. Suq Aftimos.JPG: +0 (current VI within same scope) <--
2. Jerusalem Muristan BW 1.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Suq Aftimos.JPG: Undecided.
File:Jerusalem Muristan BW 1.jpg: Undecided.
--MrPanyGoff 21:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View
Nominated by:
Berthold Werner (talk) on 2011-04-11 08:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Suq Aftimos
Reason:
better than the present VI, shows the whole entry --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC) -- Berthold Werner (talk)[reply]

 Comment. Tough choice. Yes, it shows the entire gate (+) but it is darker (-). The other photo gives good central view of the street axle which is advantage. I'm not sure which is better.--MrPanyGoff 13:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

Scores: 
1. Suq Aftimos.JPG: +0 (current VI within same scope) <--
2. Jerusalem Muristan BW 1.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Suq Aftimos.JPG: Undecided.
File:Jerusalem Muristan BW 1.jpg: Undecided.
--MrPanyGoff 21:18, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Torre Monumental, Buenos Aires[edit]

   

View promotion
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-04-19 10:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Torre Monumental, Buenos Aires		 
Scores: 
1. Torre Monumental (Buenos Aires) edit.jpg: +1
2. Torre Ingleses Buenos Aires.jpg: +0
=>
File:Torre Monumental (Buenos Aires) edit.jpg: Promoted.
File:Torre Ingleses Buenos Aires.jpg: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 21:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
Commons:Valued image candidates/Torre Monumental Buenos Aires.jpg

Franz Kafka[edit]

   

View opposition
Nominated by:
патриот8790Say whatever you want on 2011-04-17 08:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Franz Kafka

 Comment - There are 5 variants of one and the same portrait of Kafka which differ from one another in crop and resolution. I think that this photo here is the best of them.--MrPanyGoff 07:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

Scores: 
1. Kafka portrait.jpg: +0
2. Kafka1906 cropped.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Kafka portrait.jpg: Declined.
File:Kafka1906 cropped.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 22:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-04-18 14:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Franz Kafka		 
Scores: 
1. Kafka portrait.jpg: +0
2. Kafka1906 cropped.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Kafka portrait.jpg: Declined.
File:Kafka1906 cropped.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 22:30, 29 April 2011 (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/2011/04&oldid=769470925"