Commons:Valued image candidates/2019-08-13 02 Purple Sandpiper (Calidris maritima), Reykjavik Iceland.jpg

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

2019-08-13 02 Purple Sandpiper (Calidris maritima), Reykjavik Iceland.jpg

withdrawn
Image
Nominated by GRDN711 (talk) on 2020-04-24 00:20 (UTC)
Scope Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Purple Sandpiper (Calidris maritima) in Iceland
Used in Global usage
Review
(criteria)
  •  Comment - In that case, it should be nominated and promoted in the scope of " Purple Sandpiper (Calidris maritima)". It's very well established that geographic categories, when invisible to the eye, are not used in VI scopes. If that weren't the case, we could have scopes for cumulus clouds in every country - hundreds of VIs of cumulus clouds. You think that would really help the user who's searching for 1 or a few particularly useful images? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ===Examples of suitable scopes===
  1. A visually distinct plant or animal species, like Abludomelita obtusata

So note, even different species cannot be VIs unless they are visually distinct. This is further addressed below:

  • Not all unique species photographs are sufficiently valuable to become VI. For instance there are more than 5,000 known species of Ladybird, the Coccinellidae family of beetles. Several species may look so similar that it is impossible to identify the species based on a photograph alone. This is where a scope directed to some higher taxa, e.g. genus, may be more valuable.
  • So if different photos of visually indistinguishable species of Coccinellidae cannot be VIs, how is it possible for the country where a bird happens to be shot to be an acceptable part of its VI scope? The answer, very clearly, is that it is not. And I hope that we won't violate this very clear guideline here just because people feel like doing so for what really is no good reason. Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Not appropriate to have country in scope. Species (and/or subspecies) is all that is needed unless there is a geographical variant that has not been recognised so far in taxonomy. Spurzem, your basis of support goes against VI guidelines, as well thousands of existing VIs of animals. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Archaeodontosaurus mentions that the birds in Iceland are different. This is true for birds breeding on Iceland, though the taxonomy he suggests is not universally accepted (see HBW Alive website). So Iceland would have been acceptable. Geocodong of VI noms is essential for exactly this type of reason. Unfortunately, there are also migratory birds on Iceland which are not the same subspecies and the image itself could not determine which this is. I assume the August date stamp is accurate, in which case the migratory birds will be in Iceland. This cannot be known to be the endemic subspecies. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Ikan and Charles I will never understand your "scope theater". Recently I was asked to write almost half a novel, now it is too much if someone writes where he took the photo. Best regards -- Spurzem (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spurzem, I have no idea where you were asked to write half a novel for a scope, but the usefulness of a scope is based not on its length but rather the uniqueness or distinguishability of the subject described by the scope. If we had a hypothetical building called "The Palace of Fine Arts and Culture" which looks different on all sides and the interior is also notable, and it was also recently renovated and now has a completely new look, then a scope like "Palace of Fine Arts and Culture - Southeast Facade - Interior - Before renovation" might be acceptable. But for a bird which looks the same be it in Iceland, Finland, Greenland, or Turkmenistan, then even adding the location is unnecessary. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 22:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kestreltail: Absolutely strange. I have to state the geographic location in the image description, but it is not allowed to mention the location in the scope. But if it's really such a terrible mistake, delete the few words and everything will be fine. -- Spurzem (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, Spurzem, not strange at all. I'm not the one who enforces this "state the geographic location in the image description" rule, but it makes a lot of sense to me. Image scope and descriptions are not the same thing. If an image is to be promoted to VI, it should have a good quality description that provides basic information about the file, such as geographic location. A scope is not supposed to be a description of the image; otherwise, every file would be a VI because no other file has the same description. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 23:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: Both this image and the other one, are of the same bird taken a few seconds apart. I chose this one for VI nomination because the head was more three-dimensional and there was more direct engagement between the bird and the viewer. Why do you think the other one is better? --GRDN711 (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sideways head views are always used to show all the head feathers' details. Look in any field guide. As I wildlife portrait photographer, it's what I always strive for and select the side-on shot from the others I have taken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlesjsharp (talk • contribs) 18:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not expect my bird picture to generate such controversy, but points raised by many have been enlightening.

  • Ikan Kekek raises a good point and supports it well, that a geographic location should not be part of a VI scope. Categorizing bird images by geographic location does help support knowledge of the migratory pattern of the species.
  • I thank Archaeodontosaurus for his assistance in proposing an improved scope of Calidris maritima littoralis.
  • While I believe this image is better pictorially, I accept the opinion of Charlesjsharp that the other side view image is more useful.

Charlesjsharp is also correct in noting that the division of the Calidris maritima (Brunnich 1764) into three separate sub-species based on the geographic location and bird size has been proposed in taxonomy but currently remains unsettled.

  • Calidris maritima belcheri (Engelmoer & Roselaar 1998; Eastern Hudson Bay and James Bay, Canada))
  • Calidris maritima littoralis (C. L. Brehm in 1831; Iceland; largest of the sub-species)
  • Calidris maritima maritima (Brunnich 1764; Spitsbergen and Norway)

Iceland being the image location; the large size of this sandpiper and the scalloped back with heavy spotting on the breast suggest this young adult belongs to Calidris maritima littoralis rather than being a migratory bird from either of the other two sub-species.

I will add an information note concerning this in the description of both images.

Based on user comments, I propose withdrawing this image and will nominate the other side view version for VI with scope Calidris maritima littoralis.

Further comments welcome! --GRDN711 (talk) 04:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 In keeping with my previous comment, I am withdrawing this VI nomination. --GRDN711 (talk) 17:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to review an image[edit]

Any registered user can review the valued image candidates. Comments are welcome from everyone, but neither the nominator nor the original image author may vote (that does not exclude voting from users who have edited the image with a view to improving it).

Nominations should be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. Please read those and the page on scope carefully before reviewing. Reviewing here is a serious business, and a reviewer who just breezes by to say "I like it!" is not adding anything of value. You need to spend the time to check the nomination against every one of the six VI criteria, and you also need to carry out searches to satisfy yourself on the "most valuable" criterion.

Review procedure[edit]

  • On the review page the image is presented in the review size. You are welcome to view the image in full resolution by following the image links, but bear in mind that it is the appearance of the image at review size which matters.
  • Check the candidate carefully against each of the six VI criteria. The criteria are mandatory, and to succeed the candidate has to satisfy all six.
  • Use the where used field, if provided, to study the current usage of the candidate in Wikimedia projects. If you find usage of interest do add relevant links to the nomination.
  • Look for other images of the same kind of subject by following the links to relevant categories in the image page, and to any Commons galleries.
    • If you find another image which is already a VI within essentially the same scope, the candidate and the existing VI should be moved to Most Valued Review (MVR) to determine which one is the more valued.
    • If you find one or more other images which in your opinion are equally or more valued images within essentially the same scope, you should nominate these images as well and move all the candidates to an MVR.
  • Once you have made up your mind, edit the review page and add your vote or comment to the review parameter as follows:
You type You get When
*{{Comment}} My Comment. -- ~~~~ You have a comment.
*{{Info}} My information. -- ~~~~ You have information.
*{{Neutral}} Reason for neutral vote. -- ~~~~
  •  Neutral Reason for neutral vote. -- Example
 You are uncertain or wish to record a neutral vote.
*{{Oppose}} Reason for opposing vote. -- ~~~~
  •  Oppose Reason for opposing vote. -- Example
 You think that the candidate fails one or more of the six mandatory criteria.
*{{Question}} My question. -- ~~~~ You have a question.
*{{Support}} Reason for supporting. -- ~~~~
  •  Support Reason for supporting. -- Example
 You think that the candidate meets all of the six mandatory criteria.
  • If the nomination fails one of the six criteria, but in a way that can be fixed, you can optionally let the nominator know what needs to be done using the {{VIF}} template.
  • Your comment goes immediately before the final closing braces "}}" on the page.
How to update the status
  • Finally, change the status of the nomination if appropriate:
    • status=nominated When no votes or only neutral votes have been added to the review field (blue image border).
    • status=supported When there is at least one {{Support}} vote but no {{Oppose}} votes (light green image border).
    • status=opposed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote but no {{Support}} votes (red image border).
    • status=discussed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote and one {{Support}} vote (yellow image border).


Remember the criteria: 1. Most valuable 2. Suitable scope 3. Illustrates well 4. Fully described 5. Geocoded 6. Well categorized.

Changes in scope during the review period[edit]

The nominator is allowed to make changes in scope as the review proceeds, for example in response to reviewer votes or comments. Whenever a scope is changed the nominator should post a signed comment at the bottom of the review area using {{VIC-scope-change|old scope|new scope|--~~~~}}, and should also leave a note on the talk page of all existing voters asking them to reconsider their vote. A support vote made before the change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn.

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Valued_image_candidates/2019-08-13_02_Purple_Sandpiper_(Calidris_maritima),_Reykjavik_Iceland.jpg&oldid=415598032"