User:Kersti Nebelsiek/5

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

Amaurornis isabellina[edit]

   
Amaurornis isabellina 1898 changed.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
Kersti (talk) on 2013-08-30 10:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Amaurornis isabellina
Reason:

general discussion of the problem, which kind of picture is ok as valued image for a Bird, where an old image with two species is the only picture of the species we have.

This is the kind of picture I personally prefer, as it looks nice and only the bird species mentioned in the scope is visible.

My personal order of preference

  1. File:Amaurornis isabellina 1898 changed.jpg - a general composition similar to the one of the original, ok for the species on pages like Rallidae, as relevant parts of only one bird species are visible.
  2. File:Birdsofcelebesne02meye 0631b.jpg - ugly as composition of original picture is broken, ok for the species on pages like Rallidae, as relevant parts of only one bird species are visible.
  3. File:The birds of Celebes and the neighbouring islands - XLIII.jpg - the gerneral composition is nice, not ok for the species on pages like Rallidae, as relevant parts of other bird species are visible and therefore I am not shure which bird is meant without a description.
  4. File:Amaurornis isabellina 1898.jpg - ugly as composition of original picture is broken, not ok for pages like Rallidae, as relevant parts of two bird species are visible and therefore I am not shure which bird is meant without a description. -- Kersti (talk)

Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope All criteria met, the quality is ok for VI. --VT98Fan (talk) 09:13, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. VT98Fan (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Birdsofcelebesne02meye 0631b.jpg
View
Nominated by:
Kersti (talk) on 2013-08-30 14:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Amaurornis isabellina
Reason:

general discussion of the problem, which kind of picture is ok as valued image for a bird, where an old image with two species is the only source picture of the species we have.

For me this picture would be ok as no relevant parts of other birds are visible, but I don't like it and think it is ugly.

Other pictures which would be ok, but don't look very nice

-- Kersti (talk)
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose =>
undecided. VT98Fan (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
The birds of Celebes and the neighbouring islands - XLIII.jpg
View
Nominated by:
Kersti (talk) on 2013-08-30 14:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Amaurornis isabellina
Reason:

general discussion of the problem, which kind of picture is ok as valued image for a bird, where an old image with two species is the only source picture of the species we have.

OK for Wikipedia, where one could be almost shure, that the readers understand the description, written below the picture. Not OK for a page like Rallidae, or the section "Amaurornis isabellina (cat.)" on the Amaurornis page, but OK fro the "More than one species" section. Many people, who look there, may not understand any of the languages in which a description is given, therefore they should not be confused with different species in the section for one defined species. -- Kersti (talk)
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose =>
undecided. VT98Fan (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Amaurornis isabellina 1898.jpg
View
Nominated by:
Kersti (talk) on 2013-08-30 15:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Amaurornis isabellina
Reason:

general discussion of the problem, which kind of picture is ok as valued image for a bird, where an old image with two species is the only source picture of the species we have.

This picture is absolutely not OK as valued image for me, as I am not shure, which bird is meant and if both birds may be male and female of the species. To be shure, I need a description. Therefore the original would be better, as it simply looks better than this one. One could use it in an Wikipedia artikle where one could be shure, that the description is understandable for most readers, but in pages like Rallidae or Amaurornis, which may be used by users which don't speak any of the given languages there's no use for such a picture to illustrate Amaurornis isabellina.

Other examples for really bad ideas as valued images

-- Kersti (talk)
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose =>
undecided. VT98Fan (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)

5

nominated
Image 480px
Nominated by Kersti (talk) on 2013-08-30 15:00 (UTC)
Scope Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Amaurornis isabellina
Reason general discussion of the problem, which kind of picture is ok as valued image for a Bird, where an old image with two species is the only picture of the species we have. -- Kersti (talk)

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 <!!--or image set--> 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. -- ~~~~
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info My information. -- Example
You have information.
*{{Neutral}} Reason for neutral vote. -- ~~~~
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Reason for neutral vote. -- Example
You are uncertain or wish to record a neutral vote.
*{{Oppose}} Reason for opposing vote. -- ~~~~
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Reason for opposing vote. -- Example
You think that the candidate fails one or more of the six mandatory criteria.
*{{Question}} My question. -- ~~~~
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question My question. -- Example
You have a question.
*{{Support}} Reason for supporting. -- ~~~~
  • Symbol support vote.svg 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.