Comment - As I understand it, the entire point of Valued Images is that they are best to use in the context of online articles, rather than as full-page illustrations requiring the viewer to click on the photo to view them at full screen or even larger. Quoting now from Commons:Valued image value: "To become a valued image (VI) or a valued image set (VIS) the candidate must be the most valuable illustration of all images on Commons which fall within the scope of the nomination. Value is judged on the basis of the candidate's potential for online use within other Wikimedia projects. Usability in printed form is not considered." I would encourage anybody to look at the pages for the two images and decide for themselves which image is clearer on the page, rather than at larger sizes. Perhaps at full screen size, you'd have a stronger argument, and of course, your photo can be enlarged way beyond that. In that sense, of course your photo is more valuable, but as I understand it, the quality of a photo at full size that's way beyond full screen size isn't relevant to VIC when another photo is evidently superior at a size that could be used on the web page of an article. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a false problem. We are actually voting a picture pack that is automatically chosen according to the display mode (They are accessible under the image itsel. All this work is done automatically. Very large resolutions are a bonus and it is rare to ask for them. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At what size do you think we should be judging photos? Full size on whatever screen we have? If that's what you want, the rules really need to be changed. We've come up against this problem before, and you declined to support a formal rule change, so I am taking the rules at face value that we are not to judge photos at full-screen size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also thought I had posted a question asking you what makes VI different from QI to you if not that the entire point of VIs is to use them as thumbnails (not tiny thumbnails, but still far below full screen) in the context of online articles? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We do not have to worry about the work of displaying WIKI which is very well done and that adjusts the level of definition according to the multiplicity of display possibilities that we have in articles. When we upload an image, Commons will create multiple images of different sizes. We can not watch them all for each VI. On the other hand we must judge the intrinsic value of the image independently of its technical conditions it is what makes the specificity of VI. Our images must be the references for the chosen scope. A VI labeled image is unique. The same butterfly on the same flower to be labeled 5 to 10 times by IQ without problems to be frank here will make us huge amounts of image useless butlabeled. For VI we will choose the image that allows us to read the signature of a painting, to be able to count the number of elements that make up an insect antenna, the number of stamens of a flower. It is often in the quality of the details that the judgment will be made. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Intrinsic value" sounds to me like a combination of VI and QI criteria. What size are you suggesting we should judge VIC images at? Do you disagree that the point is to judge them at a size smaller than full screen size? Again, if you do, I suggest you propose new guidelines. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is very difficult to say which photo is more valuable. The one presented here is too bright in the lower middle part, the other much better exposed, but the resolution is very low. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 08:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nominationI do not see the point of changing the rules. On the other hand Lothar summarizes well the real problem of this image and I can remedy it: I will redo it is a good chalange. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 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.
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.
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
