Commons:Valued image candidates/Pyrus pyrifolia (Shinko) pollinated by Apis mellifera.jpg

Pyrus pyrifolia (Shinko) pollinated by Apis mellifera.jpg

withdrawn

Image
Nominated by	PumpkinSky talk on 2017-04-01 23:38 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Pyrus pyrifolia (Asian pear), pollinated by Apis mellifera
Used in	Global usage
Reason	This was withdrawn from a solo nomination and I'm now making it part of an MVR. PumpkinSky talk 23:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC) -- PumpkinSky talk
Review (criteria)	Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)  Oppose I do not think we need a scope like this. This implies we could have a scope for every insect on every flower. Now that would mean I could submit 1000 new VIs but I don't like it. Charles (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)  Comment @Charlesjsharp: and FYI @Archaeodontosaurus: So what's the difference in this and "Iguana iguana (Green iguana) juvenile, head", which you yourself nominated? You could have ""Iguana iguana (Green iguana) 'any of several age stages', 'any of several body parts"...? Flowers are pollinated by bees and hummingbirds and only certain species pollinate certain flowers; it's a fairly finite number of species that pollinate any specified flower species. PumpkinSky talk 13:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)  Comment Please check VI nomination guidelines for number of different scopes suggested for animals. Apis mellifera pollinates hundreds of plants. Charles (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)  Comment @Charlesjsharp: Before I made this nomination I asked User:Archaeodontosaurus what the scope should be because he's way more experienced at this than I am and I used the scope he suggested. You two clearly have a fundamental difference of opinion on this. You also didn't answer my question, you side-stepped it. I also don't consider "I don't like it" a valid objection; nominations shouldn't be subject to such whims. I see nothing in the guidelines that clearly precludes this scope. This photo depicts two species; both should be mentioned in the scope, otherwise a key element is being omitted. PumpkinSky talk 21:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)  CommentI am sorry if you misunderstood my use of English. 'I don't like it' clearly refers to the idea of having hundreds of scopes like this, I've no objections to your picture itself. I see several problems with this scope and I'm actually very surprised that @Archaeodontosaurus: has approved this scope. He is our most experienced and trusted contributor and of course knows a lot about insects. 1. It will be virtually impossible to police VIs of this type of scope as very few insect images describe the plant/flower. 2. Where do we stop? Do we have just bees polinating or what about butterflies nectaring? 3. Do we have males and females polinating/nectaring? 4. I will copy this debate to the talk page tomorrow so that others can join in. Charles (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2017 (UTC)  Comment "our most experienced and trusted contributor". Doesn't that tell you something? We have male/female butterfly pictures, partial body shots of iguanas, so by your logic we should stop allowing all that. You haven't proposed one single alternative scope, just complained about this one. If we use "Pyrus pyrifolia (Asian pear), being pollinated", why is the bee species left out? If we use "Apis mellifera pollinating" why is the flower left out? I understood your "I don't like it" comment perfectly. PumpkinSky talk 23:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)  Comment The risk of a runaway of appointments is very real and Charles is right on this point. The scope as it is centered the value on the tree which is polinized. The scope could stop there and not mention the name of the bee. This change should solve the problem. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)  Comment Archaeodontosaurus -- HUH? You're the one that told me to use this scope.  I withdraw my nomination No reason to nominate it if it's just the flower.PumpkinSky talk 10:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)  Comment making it part of a new MVR. PumpkinSky talk 23:39, 1 April 2017 (UTC)  Comment For me, it would be much better to choose your best image then edit, crop etc. and upload it. A choice of one is common in VI and makes our lives easier. Charles (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2017 (UTC)  I withdraw my nomination Per Charles, I'll crop the first one and resubmit as a regular nom. PumpkinSky talk 18:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

How to review an image

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

• 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. -- ~~~~	Comment My comment. -- Example	You have a comment.
*{{Info}} My information. -- ~~~~	Info My information. -- Example	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. -- ~~~~	Question My question. -- Example	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

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.