|
|
|
|
|
|
 Review Page (edit) |
Nominated by:
Meshari Alawfi (talk) on 2023-09-24 20:09 (UTC) |
Scope:
Saudi Hawks |
Does the image show the real colors? -- Spurzem (talk) 12:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Yes, Just the sky shift it to grayscale by white balance Meshari Alawfi (talk) 17:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
* Support Ok now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose This one is better though ineligible as VI with watermark. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- There is a lot of ineligible images better than here but we talk about eligible one, and that why we are here to support eligible images and make it free to use under creative commons, if you have other reason you can write it Meshari Alawfi (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I have copied this from the VI guidelines
Can a comparison be made with Commons images that would not themselves qualify as VIs?
Yes. 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).
I can't find the guideline that says images cannot have watermarks, but I think it may be a rule. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- "ineligible" you think it may be a rule, that strange! in basic understanding of the word "ineligible" you can't take it a rule because that is out of rule here, you just now make a new rule from your own self, when want to oppose i hope you provide a reasonable reason and not an excuses. Meshari Alawfi (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
|
Open for review. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Review Page (edit) |
Nominated by:
Meshari Alawfi (talk) on 2023-09-25 23:35 (UTC) |
Scope:
English Trumpeter |
Comment Not a suitable scope. Image is not used but appears completely different to bird on enwiki. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Scope Corrected Meshari Alawfi (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose Thanks, but when breeding can produce so many varieties, a VI scope is not possible. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- What you want to say exactly!? The correct scope already existed and the same bird in same section, what else!? Meshari Alawfi (talk) 22:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure I can be any clearer. With specialist breeding, no two birds will look alike and so how can one bird be seen to represent the generic description of English Trumpeter. It's not even a breed where an organisation (like the Kennel Club) has defined an ideal. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:05, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I have no knowledge of birds, but the section here is classified according to species. You can tell them about that, also tell that organization about this bird. Meshari Alawfi (talk) 08:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
|
Open for review. May be closed as Declined if the last vote was added no later than 00:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Review it! (edit) |
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-09-27 20:02 (UTC) |
Scope:
DR 1.0 - interior |
Comment This is the only interior but are the categories right? We have Category:DR 1.0 and there is also Category:DR1 (automobile model). Are they different cars? Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment Yes, this here is a full electric vehicle, the other one is older and comes with a combustion.--Alexander-93 (talk) 12:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
|
Open for review. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Review it! (edit) |
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-09-28 21:15 (UTC) |
Scope:
Deltochilum mexicanum (Dung beetle) navigating |
The dung beetle pushes the dung ball backwards, then stops every metre or so; climbs on top, turns through 360 deg to navigate by the sun; climbs down and carries on.
|
Open for review. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|