Commons:Closed most valued reviews/2013/01

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

Closed most valued reviews 2013/01

Pachyramphus albogriseus[edit]

   
Pachyramphus albogriseus 1902.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
Totodu74 (talk) on 2012-07-16 13:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Pachyramphus albogriseus (Black-and-white Becard)

First review: Symbol support vote.svg Support Very Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


Renomination for MVR

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose
It isn't good for illustrating the bird species, as there is much of a bird of another species on it, which is distracting and it may be a problem to know which bird is meant
It isn't good for illustratig the style of the artist as the artistic work is broken by cropping it this ugly way.
-- Kersti (talk) 20:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Commons:Valued image candidates/Pachyramphus albogriseus 1902.jpg: ±1 (current VI within same scope) <-- 
2. Commons:Valued image candidates/Pachyramphus albogriseus Keulemans.jpg: ±2
=>
File:Pachyramphus albogriseus 1902.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <--
File:Pachyramphus albogriseus Keulemans.jpg: Declined. 

--Ikar.us (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Pachyramphus albogriseus Keulemans.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
Kersti (talk) on 2012-11-21 18:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Pachyramphus albogriseus (Black-and-white Becard)
Reason:
the bird of the other species in the other candidate picture is distracting, therefore I changed the original, so that only one species is visible. -- Kersti (talk)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The idea is interesting and impressive work. I do not think we can take such liberties for a graphic work. The value remains to the original. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I don't understand your vote. If the scope would be "Drawing of John Gerrard Keulemans (1842–1912) concerning Pachyramphus albogriseus" or "historical drawing concerning Pachyramphus albogriseus" I would understand, as ist is no longer the original - But as the scope I have chosen - see headline and don't change the skope! - is "Pachyramphus albogriseus", I would prefer mine, as it illustrates the bird much better. --Kersti (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The issue is twofold: the bird and illustration. If you are right for the bird, you distorted the picture. That said without controversy because I am very appreciative of the work you have done, and I know the time you spent there. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The skope is the bird, not the illustration itself or the scientific illustration type John Gerrard Keulemans produced in his time. And I didn't "distort" the picture I made a new picture using elements of the old one.--Kersti (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with Kersti. Yann (talk) 09:39, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose That's a good try, the picture is nice seen in miniature (or thumb), but I'm really disturbed by those areas when the drawing is seen from near, and I prefer the original one. :/ Totodu74 (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Commons encourages derivative work. VI doesn't require much quality. --Ikar.us (talk) 19:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Commons:Valued image candidates/Pachyramphus albogriseus 1902.jpg: ±1 (current VI within same scope) <-- 
2. Commons:Valued image candidates/Pachyramphus albogriseus Keulemans.jpg: ±2
=>
File:Pachyramphus albogriseus 1902.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <--
File:Pachyramphus albogriseus Keulemans.jpg: Declined. 

--Ikar.us (talk) 00:40, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)

Aerial view of Television Tower St. Chrischona[edit]

   
Aerial View - Fernsehturm St. Chrischona4.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
Wladyslaw (talk) on 2013-01-04 19:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Aerial view of Television Tower St. Chrischona
Reason:
there is a better picture than this, should be delisted instead of the new one -- Wladyslaw (talk)
Scores: 
1. Aerial View - Fernsehturm St. Chrischona4.jpg: -1 (current VI within same scope) <-- 
2. Aerial view - Fernsehturm St. Chrischona5.jpg: +2
=>
File:Aerial View - Fernsehturm St. Chrischona4.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <--
File:Aerial view - Fernsehturm St. Chrischona5.jpg: Promoted. 
--Myrabella (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Aerial view - Fernsehturm St. Chrischona5.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
Wladyslaw (talk) on 2013-01-04 19:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Aerial view of Television Tower St. Chrischona
Reason:
best picture in scope, better than the actual VI -- Wladyslaw (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree with nominator's reason. I've added a geotag. --Myrabella (talk) 09:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
    oh, I have forgotten to add the geo tag, thanks for doing this --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Of course.--Jebulon (talk) 18:10, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Aerial View - Fernsehturm St. Chrischona4.jpg: -1 (current VI within same scope)
2. Aerial view - Fernsehturm St. Chrischona5.jpg: +2 <--
=>
File:Aerial View - Fernsehturm St. Chrischona4.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former.
File:Aerial view - Fernsehturm St. Chrischona5.jpg: Promoted.  <--
--Myrabella (talk) 22:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)


Nassarius reticulatus[edit]

   
Nassarius reticulatus MHNT.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2012-11-03 07:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Nassarius reticulatus (Netted dog whelk), shell
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Best in scope. But the best scope could be:

Nassarius reticulatus (Netted dog whelk), Shell

George Chernilevsky talk 10:49, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
✓ Done Oups! Thank George.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 07:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Renomination for MVR

Scores: 
1. Nassarius reticulatus MHNT.jpg: 0 (current VI within same scope) <--
2. Nassarius reticulatus .JPG: +1 
=>
File:Nassarius reticulatus MHNT.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <--
File:Nassarius reticulatus .JPG: Promoted.
--Ikar.us (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Commons:Valued image candidates/Nassarius reticulatus.JPG

Kremlin Regiment[edit]

   
Kremlin Regiment-Changing of the Guard-2.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
Godot13 (talk) on 2013-01-10 05:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Kremlin Regiment

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Tilted but also File:Russian honour guard in Alexander Garden.jpg is better. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree about the title. The tilt was intentional. -- Godot13 (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am fairly new at this. Could someone help me change the title please. Thanks. -- Godot13 (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    • He doesn't suggest to change the title, but to nominat the other image, I guess. Let's do this. --Ikar.us (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Understood and agreed. The other photo is a better exemplar for the specified scope Godot13 (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Kremlin Regiment-Changing of the Guard-2.jpg: -1 <--
2. Russian honour guard in Alexander Garden.jpg: +3 
=>
File:Kremlin Regiment-Changing of the Guard-2.jpg: Declined. <--
File:Russian honour guard in Alexander Garden.jpg: Promoted.
--Ikar.us (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Russian honour guard in Alexander Garden.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
Ikar.us (talk) on 2013-01-11 13:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Kremlin Regiment
Reason:
informal MVR suggestion -- Ikar.us (talk)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Probably best in scope, but not geocoded. cmadler (talk) 16:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Background and context reveal location. --Ikar.us (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
      • Symbol support vote.svg Support now. cmadler (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Godot13 (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Kremlin Regiment-Changing of the Guard-2.jpg: -1
2. Russian honour guard in Alexander Garden.jpg: +3 <-- 
=>
File:Kremlin Regiment-Changing of the Guard-2.jpg: Declined.
File:Russian honour guard in Alexander Garden.jpg: Promoted. <--
--Ikar.us (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)

Église Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Mouguerre, exterior[edit]

   
MOUGERRE - Église Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Mouguerre 02.jpg
View opposition
Nominated by:
Paris 16 (talk) on 2013-01-07 11:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Église Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Mouguerre, exterior

Aberration of perspective this small image is much better: France Mouguerre Eglise.jpg --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please indicate the architect if known and the year of construction. (I assume this is many centuries old?) cmadler (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. MOUGERRE - Église Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Mouguerre 02.jpg: 0 <--
2. France Mouguerre Eglise.jpg: +2 
=>
File:MOUGERRE - Église Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Mouguerre 02.jpg: Declined. <--
File:France Mouguerre Eglise.jpg: Promoted.
--Ikar.us (talk) 01:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
France Mouguerre Eglise.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
Ikar.us (talk) on 2013-01-11 19:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Église Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Mouguerre, exterior
Reason:
informal MVR nomination -- Ikar.us (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This one is better. Yann (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support VI for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please indicate the architect if known and the year of construction. (I assume this is many centuries old?) cmadler (talk) 01:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It dates from the 17th century. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
    • The upper part, too? --Ikar.us (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
      • No, 19th for upper part. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
        • Do you have any information/knowledge more specific? It's possible that a late-19th century work could still be copyrighted, depending on how long the author (architect) lived. cmadler (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Honestly no. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
          • Frankly, this kind of fundamentalistic approach seems ridiculous, if not disruptive, to me. Many ancient buildings in Europe have been rebuilt during the nineteenth century (so often the wrong way, hélas) and, in some cases, architects were certainly involved. Does that mean that the work of those architects is copyrighteable? I very much doubt and imagine the most strict official defender of French copyrights openly laughing at the present case... BTW, what about the little house at right? Face-smile.svg -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
            • From Archaeodontosaurus's comments, I understood (or misunderstood) that the upper level was a new construction in the 19th century (e.g., adding a second floor), not that it was a repair/reconstruction job. If it was some sort of repair or reconstruction, it's possible that the visible new original content was so minimal as to be irrelevant from a photo copyright position. cmadler (talk) 21:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The threshold for originality in copyright is high in France. I agree with Alvesgaspar's comment above. See my recent post on the VP/C. Yann (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. MOUGERRE - Église Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Mouguerre 02.jpg: 0
2. France Mouguerre Eglise.jpg: +2 <--
=>
File:MOUGERRE - Église Saint-Jean-Baptiste de Mouguerre 02.jpg: Declined.
File:France Mouguerre Eglise.jpg: Promoted. <--
--Ikar.us (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)

Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, Moscow (exterior)[edit]

   
Moscow - Cathedral of Christ the Saviour.jpg
View
Nominated by:
Berthold Werner (talk) on 2010-06-29 06:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, Moscow (exterior)
Reason:
IMHO better light and better perspective -- Berthold Werner (talk)

old review

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with Berthold --Pudelek (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support better perspective --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support better light. --Jebulon (talk) 10:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
old scores: 
1. Cathedral of Christ the Saviour 3.jpg: 0
2. Moscow - Cathedral of Christ the Saviour.jpg: +3 <--
=>
File:Cathedral of Christ the Saviour 3.jpg: Declined. 
File:Moscow - Cathedral of Christ the Saviour.jpg: Promoted. <--
--Myrabella (talk) 18:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

MVR Scores: 
1. Moscow - Cathedral of Christ the Saviour.jpg: ±0 <--
2. Moscow July 2011-6a.jpg: ±1
=>
File:Moscow - Cathedral of Christ the Saviour.jpg: Undecided. <--
File:Moscow July 2011-6a.jpg: Undecided. 
--Ikar.us (talk) 19:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Moscow July 2011-6a.jpg
View
Nominated by:
Alvesgaspar (talk) on 2013-01-18 19:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Cathedral of Christ the Saviour, Moscow (exterior)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info -- A tough decision, I guess! I have chosen this version because this is supposed to be the main facade of the building (see the crosses on top). -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Don't we have already a VI for this scope? --Ikar.us (talk) 20:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Alvesgaspar's comment about the sides of the building. I consider these images equally good, and I think an image of the main facade is preferable. Also, I inquired at COM:VPC about whether the reconstruction might be copyrightable (relevant, since Russia has no FOP). It does appear based on descriptions from available sources that, at least at the level of the whole building, it is not a new copyrightable work, although some of the new detail work might be. cmadler (talk) 13:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg OpposeThe building looks rather tiny to me on this image (like on many others). The architecture fails to reflect the enormous size, so the image must feature a scale. --Ikar.us (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
MVR Scores: 
1. Moscow - Cathedral of Christ the Saviour.jpg: ±0
2. Moscow July 2011-6a.jpg: ±1 <--
=>
File:Moscow - Cathedral of Christ the Saviour.jpg: Undecided.
File:Moscow July 2011-6a.jpg: Undecided. <--
--Ikar.us (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)