Commons:Valued image candidates/Mirza coquereli 1868.jpg

Mirza coquereli 1868.jpg

promoted

Image
Nominated by	Totodu74 (talk) on 2011-03-31 19:15 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Mirza coquereli (Coquerel's giant mouse lemur)
Used in	Global usage 16 uses in Main of 10 wikipedias (for Mirza or M. coquereli) + Wikispecies
Reason	Give a full vision of the animal, high definition, and... alone in the scope. -- Totodu74 (talk)
Review (criteria)	Info it is necessary to add drawing in the scope. To avoid penalizing the view "in vivo" or naturalized form --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2011 (UTC)  Done Totodu74 (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)  Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)  Comment About drawing vs photograph subscope, a previous discussion: Commons:Valued image candidates/Pseudimbrasia deyrollei.jpg, and an older one: Commons talk:Valued image candidates/candidate list/Archive 5, see the discussion "When are species subscopes warranted?". Just for the record, I won't stress on this point. --Myrabella (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)  Temporary opposition per discussion on Commons:Valued image candidates/Pseudimbrasia deyrollei.jpg. Please generalize the scope and drop the 'drawing' part. (note: I'm sometimes offline for several days, if the scope is altered you may consider my opposition void). Taxocat (talk) 07:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Scope fixed. --Taxocat (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2011 (UTC)  Done, cf. Commons:Valued image candidates/Lepilemur mustelinus 1868.jpg. Totodu74 (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)  Oppose I do not share this opinion. There will be conflict between the drawings and photographs. Both deserve to be awarded in their category. I maintain that we must add drawing. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC) I am satisfied with the discussion we had. I raise my negative vote. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)  Oppose Per Archaeodontosaurus arguments. I think this point is very important. I'll remove my opposition if done.--Jebulon (talk) 13:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC) I remove my opposition due to the debate. Let's open maybe a MVR when good photo provided.--Jebulon (talk) 07:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)  Support either scope above. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:55, 3 April 2011 (UTC)  Support all criteria met. I agree that a drawing scope is not per se excluded, but should not be required by default when no other images/photos of the taxon are involved. Taxocat (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2011 (UTC)  Support Yann (talk) 04:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Result: 3 support, 0 oppose => promoted. MrPanyGoff 09:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)