Commons:Closed most valued reviews/2010/04

Horch P2M

Commons:Valued image candidates/IFA P2M Dresden.jpg	View opposition Nominated by: Ikar.us (talk) on 2010-03-23 23:07 (UTC) Scope: Horch P2M Reason: same installation as first nomination, but more focus on and detailsof car -- Ikar.us (talk) Scores: 1. Horch P2M Dresden.JPG: +1 2. Bundeswehrmuseum Dresden 23.jpg: 0 <-- => File:Horch P2M Dresden.JPG: Promoted. File:Bundeswehrmuseum Dresden 23.jpg: Declined. <-- --Ikar.us (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Walkway Over the Hudson State Historic Park

View opposition Nominated by: –Juliancolton | Talk on 2010-03-20 23:18 (UTC) Scope: Walkway Over the Hudson State Historic Park  Info The official name seems to be "Walkway Over the Hudson State Historic Park" (see [1]): scope wording amended.  Comment The nominated image doesn't show much of the Hudson. File:Walkway over the Hudson opening day.JPG is more illustrative in my opinion. I will set up a Most Valued Review. --Myrabella (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC) Agree, doen't show the river nor the long bridge adequately.  Oppose --Ikar.us (talk) 23:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC) MVR open => discussed. --Myrabella (talk) 00:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Scores: 1. American Flag at Walkway Over the Hudson.JPG: -1 <-- 2. Walkway over the Hudson opening day.JPG: +1 => File:American Flag at Walkway Over the Hudson.JPG: Declined. <-- File:Walkway over the Hudson opening day.JPG: Promoted. --Ikar.us (talk) 06:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Myrabella (talk) on 2010-03-28 00:42 (UTC) Scope: Walkway Over the Hudson State Historic Park Reason: More illustrative in my opinion. One can better see the Hudson and the lenght of the bridge in this image, taken the opening day. -- Myrabella (talk)  Neutral River and bridge OK, but I'm sceptical because of the uninvolved people in foreground. --Ikar.us (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)  Support Agree with Myrabella, it is more illustrative. People are OK. --Mile (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC) Scores: 1. American Flag at Walkway Over the Hudson.JPG: -1 2. Walkway over the Hudson opening day.JPG: +1 <-- => File:American Flag at Walkway Over the Hudson.JPG: Declined. File:Walkway over the Hudson opening day.JPG: Promoted. <-- --Ikar.us (talk) 06:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

ВВЦ

View opposition Nominated by: Ikar.us (talk) on 2010-03-08 16:53 (UTC) Scope: All-Russia Exhibition Centre in Moscow Reason: While there are plenty of images from the park's architecture, I can't find another one which shows the park being visited by people. -- Ikar.us (talk)  Comment The nominated image is of nice quality, but it perhaps fails to show how big this exhibition park is. I read that its territory is greater than that of the Principality of Monaco. File:VVC central.jpg is of poorer quality, but it seems to me that it gives a better idea of this place. Perhaps would you have some other views in your archives? Note about the scope: inspired by the :en:WP article, I'd suggest to reword it into "All-Russia Exhibition Centre in Moscow". It seems that this exhibition centre is no longer officialy called "VDNKh" since 1992. --Myrabella (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Yes, that is nice, too. Is the forest area included in the territory sizing? Seems so. The photo is taken just behind the entrance gate and looks straight to cosmos pavillon. The longest viewshaft in the park, must be more than 1 km. But I see, it isn't obvious. I've taken too few pictures there. Found File:ВДНХ.jpg. Naming: OK; if official names are preferred... --Ikar.us (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Scope changed from VDNKh exhibition park to All-Russia Exhibition Centre in Moscow Ikar.us (talk) 22:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn". I see you like the new image. Should I drop this nomination? --Ikar.us (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for this new image, which illustrates the scope better than the first one IMO. I invite you to set up a MVR with your own challenger. --Myrabella (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Scores: 1. VDNKh Allee.jpg: 0 <-- 2. ВДНХ.jpg: +2 => File:VDNKh Allee.jpg: Declined. <-- File:ВДНХ.jpg: Promoted. --Ikar.us (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Ikar.us (talk) on 2010-03-30 21:05 (UTC) Scope: All-Russia Exhibition Centre in Moscow Reason: as suggested -- Ikar.us (talk)  Support This image shows the park being visited, with one of its main buildings, the Central Pavillon, in the background. I find it better and more illustrative than e.g. 1, 2 or 3,—and than the nominated image too. Otherwise documented, geocoded, well categorized => all criterio met, OK to me. --Myrabella (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)  Support agree. Its good. --Mile (talk) 23:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)  Info Applied enhancements like in the other image. Shouldn't influence review appearance. --Ikar.us (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Scores: 1. VDNKh Allee.jpg: 0 2. ВДНХ.jpg: +2 <-- => File:VDNKh Allee.jpg: Declined. File:ВДНХ.jpg: Promoted. <-- --Ikar.us (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

microscopic 3d surface profile

View promotion Nominated by: Dr. Schorsch (talk) on 2010-04-05 11:53 (UTC) Scope: microscopic 3d surface profile Reason: This image has a higher information value than previously promoted Confocal measurement of 1-euro-star 3d.png -- Dr. Schorsch (talk)  Info New annotations translated in French ! ;)--Jebulon (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)  Support I agree. This version is more informative. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)  Support per Walter Siegmund.----Jebulon (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)  Support more informative --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Result: 3 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Dr. Schorsch (talk) 07:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Fixing the MVR votes count after closure --Myrabella (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC) MVR Scores: 1. Confocal measurement of 1-euro-star 3d and euro.png: +3 <-- 2. Confocal measurement of 1-euro-star 3d.png: -1 (current VI within same scope) => File:Confocal measurement of 1-euro-star 3d and euro.png: Promoted. <-- File:Confocal measurement of 1-euro-star 3d.png: Declined and demoted to VI-former. Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Dr. Schorsch (talk) on 2010-02-14 20:19 (UTC) Scope: microscopic 3d surface profile Reason: As far as I can see it is the only microscopic 3d surface profile on commons. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk)  Comment Please link scope (COM:VISC), if possible, and add geolocation or claim an exemption. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)  Info Thanks for you comment. The image has no geocode because it is a studio work. I have linked the scope, but there isn't very much on commons yet where I could link to... -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)  Support This image illustrates two articles on dewiki; it is a notable topic. Other criteria are met except geocoding for which a valid exemption is claimed. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 05:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)  Oppose now. Because the other version is more informative.----Jebulon (talk) 21:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Result: 0 support, 1 oppose => declined. Dr. Schorsch (talk) 07:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Fixing the MVR votes count after closure --Myrabella (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC) MVR Scores: 1. Confocal measurement of 1-euro-star 3d and euro.png: +3 2. Confocal measurement of 1-euro-star 3d.png: -1 (current VI within same scope) <-- => File:Confocal measurement of 1-euro-star 3d and euro.png: Promoted. File:Confocal measurement of 1-euro-star 3d.png: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Cancale

View promotion Nominated by: Eusebius (talk) on 2010-04-04 17:28 (UTC) Scope: Cancale  Support. Best of the available images, showing the town and this special coast with tideland and rocks. Image page needs improvement. --Ikar.us (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)  Done--Ikar.us (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Scores: 1. France Cancale bordercropped.jpg: +1 <-- 2. Cancale - pano.jpg: 0 => File:France_Cancale_bordercropped.jpg: Promoted. <-- File:Cancale - pano.jpg: Declined. --Ikar.us (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Eusebius (talk) on 2010-04-04 17:28 (UTC) Scope: Cancale Scores: 1. France Cancale bordercropped.jpg: +1 2. Cancale - pano.jpg: 0 <-- => File:France_Cancale_bordercropped.jpg: Promoted. File:Cancale - pano.jpg: Declined. <-- --Ikar.us (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Tiburtine Sibyl

View opposition Nominated by: Adam Cuerden (talk) on 2010-03-29 14:05 (UTC) Scope: Tiburtine Sibyl Reason: The basic details of this somewhat odd mediaeval legend is that the Tiburtine sibyl showed the Emperor Augustus a vision of the Christian Heaven. I think this is the clearest of the images we have, showing all the basic elements. The other images are either too complex to be clear in thumbnail, do not show all the elements, or aren't as well drawn - though I would understand if someone wanted to put this up against one of the more colourful images for head-to-head voting. This is a 16th century chiascuro woodbloock print, which I realise we don't see much on Commons, but I believe this is of high artistic merit for this type of art. -- Adam Cuerden (talk) Previous reviews Link inserted according to renominationn instructions, trying to satisfy User:VICbot. --Ikar.us (talk) 14:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)  Comment Please link to the previous declined candidate. --Eusebius (talk) 13:18, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Commons:Valued image candidates/Antonio da Trento - The Tiburtine sibyl and the Emperor Augustus.jpg OLDER - I renamed it because I didn't want to break the VPC system. That said, this is a completely redone version of the image. The only complaint was about categorization, as far as I can tell, it does not apply now. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2010 (UTC)  Info It seems that this not much known Italian engraver, Antonio da Trento, made a kind of derivated work. This woodcut is apparently after an original design by the more famous artist Parmigianino, like other woodcuts he made. See: [2], [3], [4] and [[5]]).  Request The description should mention that this engraving is after Permigianino (also called Parmigiano). --Myrabella (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Gladly. I've added it in, citing your second reference (as the first doesn't have clear biographical details). Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:43, 30 March 2010 (UTC)  Comment I have two comments, in fact: 1) For the scope "Tiburtine Sibyl", I would rather support the painting by the Master of the Tiburtine Sybil, not only because it is more colouful ;-) (see [1]). The reproduction we have in Commons is not of upstanding quality (File:Meister_der_tiburtinischen_Sibylle_001.jpg); nethertheless, I propose to set up a MVR. 2) I draw your attention to the fact that an image can be considered valued within more than one scope. I would suggest to prepare a second nomination for the scope "chiaroscuro woodcut". This topic deserves a scope to me: "It was in the medium of woodcut that color was first introduced into printmaking, in the prints known as chiaroscuro woodcuts" can one read in this source; see also Chiaroscuro woodcuts. But before nominating, some work is necessary: a related category should be created, with a bunch of images to sort (not only with prints by da Tranto ;-)—I can give a hand for that. This second scope would be suitably generic, and it might better salute the fine work of restoration you've achieved. --Myrabella (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC) I'm fine with these proposals. I pondered the Master of the Tiburtine Sibyl's painting, but it's not a very good reproduction, and, at the tiny thumbnail size, I think it's very hard to understand, since the Virgin becomes just a speck, and the murky brown cast over the image - which is the reproduction's fault, that's typical for a Yorck Project work - blends the details together. If we had a good reproduction of it, I'd agree with you. The "more colourful" one I was thinking of was File:Nuremberg_chronicles_-_Tiburnine_Sibyll_(XCIIIv).jpg. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC) However I set up the MVR, with sportive spirit :-). --Myrabella (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Do you think da Trento himself is a suitable scope for VIC? Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC) I wouldn't say so. He isn't famous himself, except for his woodcuts after an other artist's designs, is he? --Myrabella (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)  Comment The mythic meeting of Caesar Augustus with the Tiburtine Sibyl later reinterpreted as a Christian theme became a favored motif of artists. Within this specific scope, I wouldn't support the nominated image for two reasons. Firstly, I am a bit reluctant to support an art work made by a not much know engraver, who did a derivated work after someone else design (or even worse, some sources even asserting that Permigianino's original designs were stolen). Secondly and focusing on the image itself, I aknowledge its quality but I would say that at the review size, one may have difficulties to understand what the Sibyl is showing (according to the caption, she points to "The Virgin Mary, with the Infant Christ in Her Lap" but it isn't so obvious) and that she shows this vision to an important figure. --Myrabella (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Reopened - may as well have this open for discussion =) --Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Scores: 1. Antonio da Trento - The Tiburtine sibyl and the Emperor Augustus-2010: 0 <-- 2. Meister der tiburtinischen Sibylle 001.jpg: -1 3. Nuremberg chronicles - Tiburnine Sibyll (XCIIIv) edit.jpg: +3 => File:Antonio da Trento - The Tiburtine sibyl and the Emperor Augustus.jpg: Declined. <-- File:Meister der tiburtinischen Sibylle 001.jpg: Declined. File:Nuremberg chronicles - Tiburnine Sibyll (XCIIIv) edit.jpg: Promoted. --Ikar.us (talk) 16:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Myrabella (talk) on 2010-03-31 15:24 (UTC) Scope: Tiburtine Sibyl Reason: The mythic meeting of Caesar Augustus with the Tiburtine Sibyl later reinterpreted as a Christian theme became a favored motif of artists. This 15th-century painting by the Early Netherlandish painter known under the name "Master of Tiburtine Sibyl" is the most evocative to me, among the images available within this scope. See also: [1]. --Myrabella (talk). The image looks good on-screen at the review size, which is a VI quality requirement. 15:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC) -- Myrabella (talk)  Support Die flächige mittelalterliche Malweise ist ideal für kleine Ansichten. (In the translators' forum they haven't found an English word for flächig yet.) Well documented. --Ikar.us (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC) Withdrawn for even better candidate. --Ikar.us (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)  Oppose I just don't think the reproduction is good enough. It's so... yellow. The other image is supposed to be yellow. This one? It's a Yorck project reproduction, and they're almost always wrongly-coloured. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)  Comment The scopes isn't about the painting, but the subject that the painting depicts. IMO technical quality of the reproduction doesn't matter, if it doen't disturb recognizability of the subject.--Ikar.us (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry, I just don't agree. When the reproduction is this bad, with a strong yellow cast that makes the contrast between the figures be substantially reduced, it's just too misleading. It's being suggested as valued because of who its by - the Master of the Tiburtinian Sibyl. But it misrepresents his work. What if we cropped File:Nuremberg chronicles - Tiburnine Sibyll (XCIIIv).jpg down to the image, and did a little basic perspective correction? It's not great art, but it's notable and, if anything, much clearer at thumbnail size. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC) @Adam: If you produced the edited version you have suggested, it could be a third competitor indeed. --Myrabella (talk) 17:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC) I've not actually used GIMP for perspective correction before - most of my edits are to engravings I prepared myself. I'll see what happens. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Can't seem to fix the barrel distortion, alas. Someone else want to have a poke? Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC) Here is an attempt: File:Nuremberg chronicles - Tiburnine Sibyll (XCIIIv) edit.jpg --Myrabella (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Scores: 1. Antonio da Trento - The Tiburtine sibyl and the Emperor Augustus-2010: 0 2. Meister der tiburtinischen Sibylle 001.jpg: -1 <-- 3. Nuremberg chronicles - Tiburnine Sibyll (XCIIIv) edit.jpg: +3 => File:Antonio da Trento - The Tiburtine sibyl and the Emperor Augustus.jpg: Declined. File:Meister der tiburtinischen Sibylle 001.jpg: Declined. <-- File:Nuremberg chronicles - Tiburnine Sibyll (XCIIIv) edit.jpg: Promoted. --Ikar.us (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
Commons:Valued image candidates/Nuremberg Chronicle - Tiburtine Sibyl (XCIIIv) edit.jpg

Papaver somniferum (flower)

View opposition Nominated by: Eusebius (talk) on 2010-04-09 08:43 (UTC) Scope: Papaver somniferum (flower) Reason: Nominated for demotion (along with a competitor), since it apparently proved not to be a Papaver somniferum. -- Eusebius (talk) Previous reviews Scores: 1. Papaver somniferum 01.JPG: 0 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Papaver somniferum (3).jpg: 0 3. Poster papaver 5a.jpg: 0 => File:Papaver somniferum 01.JPG: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Papaver somniferum (3).jpg: Declined. File:Poster papaver 5a.jpg: Declined. Valued image set: Papaver somniferum: Promoted --Ikar.us (talk) 07:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Eusebius (talk) on 2010-04-09 08:45 (UTC) Scope: Papaver somniferum (flower) Reason: Unfortunately, location is not known, but I think it is a pretty nice and illustrative picture, with two stages of the flower (like in the previous VI). -- Eusebius (talk)  Comment For this scope, perhaps could we also consider this recent FPC nomination File:Poster_papaver_5a.jpg as a third candidate. Not geocoded too, but I guess we could ask the creator. --Myrabella (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Scores: 1. Papaver somniferum 01.JPG: 0 (current VI within same scope) 2. Papaver somniferum (3).jpg: 0 <-- 3. Poster papaver 5a.jpg: 0 => File:Papaver somniferum 01.JPG: Declined and demoted to VI-former. File:Papaver somniferum (3).jpg: Declined. <-- File:Poster papaver 5a.jpg: Declined. Valued image set: Papaver somniferum: Promoted --Ikar.us (talk) 07:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View opposition Nominated by: Jebulon (talk) on 2010-04-09 21:51 (UTC) Scope: papaver somniferum flower Reason: Maybe a troisième voie, as suggested by Myrabella -- Jebulon (talk) I'll ask the author for geocoding.  Support The best of the three, IMO. But maybe it could be considered as a "set" ?--Jebulon (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)  Oppose Yes, probably a perfect set, but I don't like collages generally, especially not as VI. Going to cut it. --Ikar.us (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)  Done cut. --Ikar.us (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)  Done set nomination. --Ikar.us (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Scores: 1. Papaver somniferum 01.JPG: 0 (current VI within same scope) 2. Papaver somniferum (3).jpg: 0 3. Poster papaver 5a.jpg: 0 <-- => File:Papaver somniferum 01.JPG: Declined and demoted to VI-former. File:Papaver somniferum (3).jpg: Declined. File:Poster papaver 5a.jpg: Declined. <-- Valued image set: Papaver somniferum: Promoted --Ikar.us (talk) 07:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)