Commons:Valued image candidates/Lomatium parryi 2

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

Lomatium parryi 2

declined
Image Lomatium parryi.jpg
Nominated by ZooFari (talk) on 2009-05-16 01:14 (UTC)
Scope Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Lomatium parryi
Reason Nice quality image valued to other Wiki projects as well. -- ZooFari (talk)
Review
(criteria)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The image quality is excellent, but it shows only the inflorescence and both the inflorescence and leaves are usually distinguishing features in this genus. For that reason, File:Lomatium_parryi_2.jpg may be better in that it shows foliage and inflorescence from the current and previous year. That image is not geocoded, but its location is specified. Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Perhaps. Actually, I'm a little concerned about the other images. They may not have the proper ID. This one was verified by the Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area regulars, and it does not look nothing like the other images within the scope. ZooFari (talk) 22:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I agree with Walter, but I also acknowledge the concern raised by the nominator concerning correct identification of competing images. I have contacted Stan Shebs, the creator of File:Lomatium_parryi_2.jpg to ask for
    1. Geocoding such that it can compete with the nominated image in an MVR
    2. Additional info in the image page concerning how that plant was IDed.
--Slaunger (talk) 22:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have no opinion which image is "best", but there is no doubt as to the ID of any of these. The Spring Mountains checklist (Mentzelia 8, 2007), which includes Red Rock Canyon, lists two Lomatium species, L. parryi and L. nevadense (which in turn has two varieties). L. parryi has yellow flowers, L. nevadense flowers are white. L. parryi is also notable for being among the earliest bloomers at Red Rock, getting busy in February when even mustards and other umbellifers don't even think about getting going until March. I don't know what an RRCNCA "regular" is, but for my part I've been in the Nevada Native Plant Society for several years and by now have been on field trips with most of the professional botanists in southern Nevada. While there are plenty of local species whose ID is difficult, even for the pros (Cryptantha, Gilia, Eriogonum, and Ericameria are all notorious), Lomatium parryi is not one of them. Stan Shebs (talk) 05:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Conditional oppose It is against our policy to have transcluded user-defined license templates. They should be subst'ed. The reason is that if they are transcluded the license can be changed to (e.g. a more restrictive one, not that I have any reason to think that is your intention) without that appearing on the image page history, and that is a no, no.--Slaunger (talk) 20:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Result: 0 support, 1 oppose =>
declined. Lycaon (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2009 (UTC)