Commons:Valued image candidates/Coq de Sonnerat MHNT.jpg

Coq de Sonnerat MHNT.jpg

promoted

Image
Nominated by	Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2011-11-29 06:45 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Gallus sonneratii (Grey Junglefowl), egg
Used in	Global usage
Review (criteria)	Support. All criteria met -- George Chernilevsky talk 21:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)  Oppose Quod non. When in doubt... พ.s. 01:05, 3 December 2011 (UTC)  Support As in my previous comments --Llez (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)  Comment The id is wrong, this is Gallus gallus!! พ.s. 23:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC) Confirmation of identification.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2011 (UTC) You still don't get it, don't you? How can you confirm an id of something that is visually indistinctive? I'm happy to take your word for it, but it cannot be a VI as you can never satisfy all criteria. The eggs in my fridge, e.g., look exactly like this one and I could make exactly the same image. An image is per definition a visual thing and not an accredited document. And unless you want to ignore the basis of this project (criterion 3), you should not nominate this kind of imagery here. พ.s. 07:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC) The image gives: the shape, size, surface texture, color. I understand that a biologist submarine failing to recognize an egg, I am not able myself but ornithologists can do. The oologie is a recognized science. We are fortunate that we can share knowledge in a free, based on clearly identified specimens deposited in a public collection, which were used for work published identifications. "Microscopic examination of the surface of the eggshells of birds" - Jacques Perrin de Brichambaut - Alauda - 1982 For me there are many things I can not control. On this page I have no competence to judge an airplane or boat, and when in doubt I refrain. But I do not deny the existence of what I can not judge. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:12, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Exactly! You just invalidated your own nomination with the above publication. Commons concerns media that are identifiable on sight (or hearing as it may be). Distinctiveness in eggs is often determined on a microscopic level. I don't see a macro photo of the shell structure here. How can it be a VI when you can't visually separate one species from another. I have a whole series of Bathyporeia species on my gallery, which I know are correctly identified but for which it is not possible to see the distinctive features on the photo (File:Bathyporeia elegans.jpg, File:Bathyporeia guilliamsoniana.jpg, File:Bathyporeia pelagica.jpg, File:Bathyporeia pilosa.jpg, File:Bathyporeia sarsi.jpg, File:Bathyporeia tenuipes.jpg). Therefore I can not nominate them here, though they are the best (only even) that Commons can provide. And please don't judge my expertise as a biologist, it is offensive. พ.s. 12:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry that you have found my term offensive because I bothered to check they are not.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC) discussion is not finished พ.s. 00:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC) Result: 2 support, 1 oppose => promoted. Claritas (talk) 10:27, 15 December 2011 (UTC)