Commons:Closed most valued reviews/2010/06

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

Phyllomedusa sauvagii

[edit]
   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Jutta234 (talk) on 2010-05-21 23:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Phyllomedusa sauvagii (Waxy Monkey Frog)		 
Scores: 
1. Phyllomedusa sauvagii.jpg: 0
2. Makifrosch-59.jpg: 0
3. Waxy.tree.frog.arp.jpg: +2
=>
File:Phyllomedusa sauvagii.jpg: Declined.
File:Makifrosch-59.jpg: Declined.
File:Waxy.tree.frog.arp.jpg: Promoted.
--Eusebius (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
Jutta234 (talk) on 2010-05-24 10:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Phyllomedusa sauvagii
Reason:
as suggested by User:Wsiegmund -- Jutta234 (talk)
Scores: 
1. Phyllomedusa sauvagii.jpg: 0
2. Makifrosch-59.jpg: 0
3. Waxy.tree.frog.arp.jpg: +2
=>
File:Phyllomedusa sauvagii.jpg: Declined.
File:Makifrosch-59.jpg: Declined.
File:Waxy.tree.frog.arp.jpg: Promoted.
--Eusebius (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Jutta234 (talk) on 2010-05-24 10:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Phyllomedusa sauvagii
Reason:
as suggested by User:Wsiegmund -- Jutta234 (talk)
Scores: 
1. Phyllomedusa sauvagii.jpg: 0
2. Makifrosch-59.jpg: 0
3. Waxy.tree.frog.arp.jpg: +2
=>
File:Phyllomedusa sauvagii.jpg: Declined.
File:Makifrosch-59.jpg: Declined.
File:Waxy.tree.frog.arp.jpg: Promoted.
--Eusebius (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Vespula germanica

[edit]
   

View
Nominated by:
Jutta234 (talk) on 2010-05-21 21:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Vespula germanica (German Wasp)		 
MVR Scores: 
1. AD2009Sep09 Vespula germanica 03.jpg: 0 <--
2. AD2009Sep09 Vespula germanica 01.jpg: 0
=>
File:AD2009Sep09 Vespula germanica 03.jpg: Undecided <--
File:AD2009Sep09 Vespula germanica 01.jpg: Undecided
--Myrabella (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View
Nominated by:
Jutta234 (talk) on 2010-05-24 11:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Vespula germanica (German Wasp)
Reason:
as suggested by User:Archaeodontosaurus -- Jutta234 (talk)

MVR Scores: 

1. AD2009Sep09 Vespula germanica 03.jpg: 0 
2. AD2009Sep09 Vespula germanica 01.jpg: 0 <--
=>
File:AD2009Sep09 Vespula germanica 03.jpg: Undecided 
File:AD2009Sep09 Vespula germanica 01.jpg: Undecided <--
--Myrabella (talk) 11:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Folly (architecture)

[edit]
   

View promotion
Nominated by:
Matthew Proctor (talk) on 2010-05-26 04:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Folly (architecture)		 
Scores: 
1. Broadway-tower-cotswolds-modf.jpg: +2
2. Erm11.JPG: 0
3. Petit Trianon Temple Amour: +1
4. P1010614.JPG: 0
5. FoliemailLaRochelle.jpg: 0
=>
File:Broadway-tower-cotswolds-modf.jpg: Promoted.
File:Erm11.JPG: Declined.
File:Chateau de Versailles Temple Amour.jpg: Declined.
File:P1010614.JPG: Declined.
File:FoliemailLaRochelle.jpg: Declined.
--Eusebius (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
Commons:Valued image candidates/Le Temple de la Philosophie moderne.jpg

View opposition
Nominated by:
Myrabella (talk) on 2010-05-26 22:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Folly (architecture)
Reason:
The 'Temple of Love' is one of the famous 18th-century follies built in the Petit Trianon gardens in Versailles, France. The landscape is somewhat fake (or re-interpreted) too, with an artificial island and river. -- Myrabella (talk)
Scores: 
1. Broadway-tower-cotswolds-modf.jpg: +2
2. Erm11.JPG: 0
3. Petit Trianon Temple Amour: +1
4. P1010614.JPG: 0
5. FoliemailLaRochelle.jpg: 0
=>
File:Broadway-tower-cotswolds-modf.jpg: Promoted.
File:Erm11.JPG: Declined.
File:Chateau de Versailles Temple Amour.jpg: Declined.
File:P1010614.JPG: Declined.
File:FoliemailLaRochelle.jpg: Declined.
--Eusebius (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
Commons:Valued image candidates/Videopaviljoen by Zaha Hadid in Appingedam, February 2008.jpg

View opposition
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2010-05-28 21:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Folly (architecture)
Reason:
an example of a XIX copy of a XVIIIth century folly in a public garden in La Rochelle, France -- Jebulon (talk)

May I play with you ? Another example, named after Louis-Benjamin Fleuriau de Bellevue , a local-famous scientist born in La Rochelle, initiator of the natural history museum of the city.--Jebulon (talk) 22:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure: those kinds of things actually serve a reasonable purpose - protection from rain and sun, and don't have a form that suggests any other purpose. That's less of a folly, in the original sense they're named after, than fake ruins, or a huge building made just to satisfy curiosity. This one even has benches inside. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe...Not only a pure "scenery", I agree...--Jebulon (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scores: 
1. Broadway-tower-cotswolds-modf.jpg: +2
2. Erm11.JPG: 0
3. Petit Trianon Temple Amour: +1
4. P1010614.JPG: 0
5. FoliemailLaRochelle.jpg: 0
=>
File:Broadway-tower-cotswolds-modf.jpg: Promoted.
File:Erm11.JPG: Declined.
File:Chateau de Versailles Temple Amour.jpg: Declined.
File:P1010614.JPG: Declined.
File:FoliemailLaRochelle.jpg: Declined.
--Eusebius (talk) 09:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Anaxyrus boreas (Western Toad)

[edit]
   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Walter Siegmund (talk) on 2010-05-22 16:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Anaxyrus boreas (Western Toad)
Reason:
The parotoid glands of this species helps to distinguish it from others. Located behind the eyes, they are oval, widely separated, and larger than the upper eyelids. The right gland of this individual is well-depicted in this image. Also visible is the whitish line along the mid-back. This image is used by six projects in seven articles. -- Walter Siegmund (talk)
Scores: 
1. Bufo boreas 10565.JPG: 0
2. Bufo boreas 5629.JPG: +1
=>
File:Bufo boreas 10565.JPG: Declined.
File:Bufo boreas 5629.JPG: Promoted.
--Eusebius (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Walter Siegmund (talk) on 2010-05-27 23:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Anaxyrus boreas (Western Toad)
Reason:
Proposed by Lycaon. -- Walter Siegmund (talk)
Scores: 
1. Bufo boreas 10565.JPG: 0
2. Bufo boreas 5629.JPG: +1
=>
File:Bufo boreas 10565.JPG: Declined.
File:Bufo boreas 5629.JPG: Promoted.
--Eusebius (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Robert Surcouf

[edit]
   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2010-05-29 19:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Robert Surcouf
Do you think it should be considered as a serious candidate if we could find the necessary info? --Eusebius (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, there's a painting this is probably loosely based off of, and, judging by this using stipple engraving, this, and hence the painting is of the right age to be from life. I'd say the painting was the one A. most likely to be located, B. Most likely to be a serious contender to the statue. Adam Cuerden (talk) 11:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The versions we have of the painting are far below review size, unfortunately. For me, I don't really like this version, because it is not from the "glorious times" ("glorious" standing for "bothering the English"), rather from the "fat times" (standing from "drinking their tea"). But it's a very subjective opinion. --Eusebius (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scores: 
1. Robert Surcouf LoH engraving.jpg: -1
2. Robert Surcouf engraving.jpg: -1
3. Saint-Malo - Surcouf plan américain.jpg: 0
4. Robert Surcouf.jpg: -1
5. Saint-Malo - Surcouf et le Fort National crop.jpg: +3
=>
File:Robert Surcouf LoH engraving.jpg: Declined.
File:Robert Surcouf engraving.jpg: Declined.
File:Saint-Malo - Surcouf plan américain.jpg: Declined.
File:Robert Surcouf.jpg: Declined.
File:Saint-Malo - Surcouf et le Fort National crop.jpg: Promoted.
--Eusebius (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2010-05-29 19:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Robert Surcouf
Do you think it should be considered as a serious candidate if we could find the necessary info? --Eusebius (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scores: 
1. Robert Surcouf LoH engraving.jpg: -1
2. Robert Surcouf engraving.jpg: -1
3. Saint-Malo - Surcouf plan américain.jpg: 0
4. Robert Surcouf.jpg: -1
5. Saint-Malo - Surcouf et le Fort National crop.jpg: +3
=>
File:Robert Surcouf LoH engraving.jpg: Declined.
File:Robert Surcouf engraving.jpg: Declined.
File:Saint-Malo - Surcouf plan américain.jpg: Declined.
File:Robert Surcouf.jpg: Declined.
File:Saint-Malo - Surcouf et le Fort National crop.jpg: Promoted.
--Eusebius (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2010-05-29 19:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Robert Surcouf		 
Scores: 
1. Robert Surcouf LoH engraving.jpg: -1
2. Robert Surcouf engraving.jpg: -1
3. Saint-Malo - Surcouf plan américain.jpg: 0
4. Robert Surcouf.jpg: -1
5. Saint-Malo - Surcouf et le Fort National crop.jpg: +3
=>
File:Robert Surcouf LoH engraving.jpg: Declined.
File:Robert Surcouf engraving.jpg: Declined.
File:Saint-Malo - Surcouf plan américain.jpg: Declined.
File:Robert Surcouf.jpg: Declined.
File:Saint-Malo - Surcouf et le Fort National crop.jpg: Promoted.
--Eusebius (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2010-05-29 19:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Robert Surcouf
Reason:
Or maybe a crop of this picture, instead of this candidate? --Eusebius (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC) -- Eusebius (talk)[reply]
Scores: 
1. Robert Surcouf LoH engraving.jpg: -1
2. Robert Surcouf engraving.jpg: -1
3. Saint-Malo - Surcouf plan américain.jpg: 0
4. Robert Surcouf.jpg: -1
5. Saint-Malo - Surcouf et le Fort National crop.jpg: +3
=>
File:Robert Surcouf LoH engraving.jpg: Declined.
File:Robert Surcouf engraving.jpg: Declined.
File:Saint-Malo - Surcouf plan américain.jpg: Declined.
File:Robert Surcouf.jpg: Declined.
File:Saint-Malo - Surcouf et le Fort National crop.jpg: Promoted.
--Eusebius (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2010-05-30 11:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Robert Surcouf
Reason:
Better like that? -- Eusebius (talk)
To make the statue more central in the composition. The fort brings some context (although it is not directly related to Surcouf I think: most of the city existed when he lived), but without it the image is a better simple and direct illustration of, say, an article about Surcouf. Besides, it makes Surcouf larger at the same image size. --Eusebius (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I considered the uncropped version, but thought it made the statue too small in any reasonable size for an article thumbnail, unfortunately. The uncropped versin is a better image for gweeneral use, but in the specific context VIC is judged in, this is better. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support You know what ? I'm not ill, but nevertheless I agree with everybody ! (and I love this)--Jebulon (talk) 16:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scores: 
1. Robert Surcouf LoH engraving.jpg: -1
2. Robert Surcouf engraving.jpg: -1
3. Saint-Malo - Surcouf plan américain.jpg: 0
4. Robert Surcouf.jpg: -1
5. Saint-Malo - Surcouf et le Fort National crop.jpg: +3
=>
File:Robert Surcouf LoH engraving.jpg: Declined.
File:Robert Surcouf engraving.jpg: Declined.
File:Saint-Malo - Surcouf plan américain.jpg: Declined.
File:Robert Surcouf.jpg: Declined.
File:Saint-Malo - Surcouf et le Fort National crop.jpg: Promoted.
--Eusebius (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Aleppo

[edit]
   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2010-06-03 09:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Aleppo
Reason:
Maybe a montage of both panos can be considered? They cannot be stitched together though. File:Pano Alep 2.jpg shows the Great Mosque and the souq, unlike the other one. -- Eusebius (talk)

Scores: 
1. Pano Alep 1.jpg: 0 <--
2. Pano Alep 2.jpg: +1
=>
File:Pano Alep 1.jpg: Declined. <--
File:Pano Alep 2.jpg: Promoted.
--Ikar.us (talk) 11:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2010-06-03 09:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Aleppo
Reason:
Maybe a montage of both panos can be considered? They cannot be stitched together though. File:Pano Alep 2.jpg shows the Great Mosque and the souq, unlike the other one. -- Eusebius (talk)
That's all I have. --Eusebius (talk) 22:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scores: 
1. Pano Alep 1.jpg: 0
2. Pano Alep 2.jpg: +1 <--
=>
File:Pano Alep 1.jpg: Declined.
File:Pano Alep 2.jpg: Promoted. <--
--Ikar.us (talk) 11:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Westerheversand lighthouse

[edit]
   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Ikar.us (talk) on 2010-05-27 21:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Westerheversand lighthouse, Germany
Reason:
Shows the well-known silhouette as well as the situation and access way, and the farther vicinity. Image by User:Zacke82 -- Ikar.us (talk)
Scores: 
1. Westerheversand Leuchtturm.JPG: 0 <--
2. Westerhever.jpg: 0
3. Leuchtturm Westerhever.JPG: 0
4. Westerheversand Leuchtturm.jpg: +2
=>
File:Westerheversand Leuchtturm.JPG: Declined. <--
File:Westerhever.jpg: Declined.
File:Leuchtturm Westerhever.JPG: Declined.
File:Westerheversand Leuchtturm.jpg: Promoted.
--Ikar.us (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
suggested by Lycaon (talk) on 2010-06-03 19:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Westerheversand lighthouse, Germany
Reason:
suggested in review -- suggested by Lycaon (talk)

Scores: 
1. Westerheversand Leuchtturm.JPG: 0
2. Westerhever.jpg: 0 <--
3. Leuchtturm Westerhever.JPG: 0
4. Westerheversand Leuchtturm.jpg: +2
=>
File:Westerheversand Leuchtturm.JPG: Declined.
File:Westerhever.jpg: Declined. <--
File:Leuchtturm Westerhever.JPG: Declined.
File:Westerheversand Leuchtturm.jpg: Promoted.
--Ikar.us (talk) 11:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
Ikar.us (talk) on 2010-06-03 19:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Westerheversand lighthouse, Germany
Reason:
shows the character of the place -- Ikar.us (talk)

Scores: 
1. Westerheversand Leuchtturm.JPG: 0
2. Westerhever.jpg: 0
3. Leuchtturm Westerhever.JPG: 0 <--
4. Westerheversand Leuchtturm.jpg: +2
=>
File:Westerheversand Leuchtturm.JPG: Declined.
File:Westerhever.jpg: Declined.
File:Leuchtturm Westerhever.JPG: Declined. <--
File:Westerheversand Leuchtturm.jpg: Promoted.
--Ikar.us (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Ikar.us (talk) on 2010-06-04 13:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Westerheversand lighthouse, Germany
Reason:
Cropped as suggested. -- Ikar.us (talk)
  •  Support I support this image because here we can see a bit of the shore in the background (important for a lighthouse) and something of the salt marshes which are notable in this landscape, according to en:Westerhever; this cropped version without distracting sheep is better than the first nominee IMO. Otherwise documented and geocoded => criteria met to me. Maybe the Category:Salt marshes could be added. --Myrabella (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, also for rotating. I'd like to give some additional  Info: This lighthouse is a well-known motif, from a famous beer advertising, postcards sold all over the sea shore, etc. It appears in TV series, spmetimes pretending to be located in a different sorrounding, like on an island in the sea, or within mellow meadows with cows near a village. That's why I find it especially important to chhose a wide view, which shows the character of the location. --Ikar.us (talk) 15:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The sky above the lighthouse adds little value. The composition with the centered tower is mitigated by the asymmetric complex. But quibbles aside, I think this one satisfies the criteria best. Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scores: 
1. Westerheversand Leuchtturm.JPG: 0
2. Westerhever.jpg: 0
3. Leuchtturm Westerhever.JPG: 0
4. Westerheversand Leuchtturm.jpg: +2 <--
=>
File:Westerheversand Leuchtturm.JPG: Declined.
File:Westerhever.jpg: Declined.
File:Leuchtturm Westerhever.JPG: Declined.
File:Westerheversand Leuchtturm.jpg: Promoted. <--
--Ikar.us (talk) 11:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Mamiya C330

[edit]
   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2010-06-05 21:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Mamiya C330
Reason:
Picture by DANYvanvee -- Eusebius (talk)
Scores: 
1. C330with grip.jpg: +1 <--
2. Mamiya C330 IMGP9300.jpg: +2
3. Mamiya C330 Pro F.jpg: +1
=>
File:C330with grip.jpg: Declined. <--
File:Mamiya C330 IMGP9300.jpg: Promoted.
File:Mamiya C330 Pro F.jpg: Declined.
--Ikar.us (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2010-06-05 21:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Mamiya C330
Reason:
Picture by Johann H. Addicks -- Eusebius (talk)
Scores: 
1. C330with grip.jpg: +1
2. Mamiya C330 IMGP9300.jpg: +2 <--
3. Mamiya C330 Pro F.jpg: +1
=>
File:C330with grip.jpg: Declined.
File:Mamiya C330 IMGP9300.jpg: Promoted. <--
File:Mamiya C330 Pro F.jpg: Declined.
--Ikar.us (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2010-06-05 21:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Mamiya C330
I do not think I have made a picture with the viewer open. I think this was the most "probable VI" from my set. --Eusebius (talk) 14:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scores: 
1. C330with grip.jpg: +1
2. Mamiya C330 IMGP9300.jpg: +2
3. Mamiya C330 Pro F.jpg: +1 <--
=>
File:C330with grip.jpg: Declined.
File:Mamiya C330 IMGP9300.jpg: Promoted.
File:Mamiya C330 Pro F.jpg: Declined. <--
--Ikar.us (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Novodevichy Convent, Moscow

[edit]
   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Ikar.us (talk), photo by User:Lotusalp on 2010-06-11 21:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Novodevichy Convent, Moscow
Reason:
allMost characteristic buildings in one image, filling it -- Ikar.us (talk), photo by User:Lotusalp
  •  Support Agree with reason. Documented, geocoded, used in 8 pages in 5 projects. The only other images I've found giving such an overall view are 19th-century illustrations (1; 2). The nominated image is the best image for the scope, IMO. P.S. : I've edited a new version of the file (slight increase of luminosity and contrast, chiefly). --Myrabella (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Some buildings are missing, at least one church and part of monastery.See this : [2] --Mile (talk) 09:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not on Commons presently? Please consider that the choice is limited to the available images on Commons. --Myrabella (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's right that my reason was wrong. Not all buildings are there, Dormition Cathedral and Intercession Church are missing. But it's hardly possible to put all of then them on a terrestric image. Aerial would be perfect, but we don't have one. --Ikar.us (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've transferred the proposed opponent. The tip of Dormition Cathedral is visible. That's not much more, and the image quality is a bit weird. --Ikar.us (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I stay agree with the more accurate reason :-) This one remains my favorite among the 4 candidates. --Myrabella (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some considerations about the scope: I wondered why en: distinguishes Novodevichy Convent and Donskoy Monastery, while ru: doesn't. Found that very different differences were usual for these terms:
    1. Monastery for a facility, convent for an organisational unit.
    2. A monastery's inhabitants spend their lifes in cloister, a convent is the homebase for a congregation who operates in the world.
    3. Monastery is for monks, convent for nuns. Seems that the latter is followed here. --Ikar.us (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article in en:WP begins with "Novodevichy Convent, also known as Bogoroditse-Smolensky Monastery (Russian: Новоде́вичий монасты́рь, Богоро́дице-Смоле́нский монасты́рь)" [...] Its name, sometimes translated as the New Maidens' Monastery, was devised to differ from an ancient maidens' convent in the Moscow Kremlin". I guess your point 3 may explain the translation "Convent". --Myrabella (talk) 13:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's what I tried to say. --Ikar.us (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scores: 
1. Russie - Moscou - Novodevichy 4.jpg: 0 <--
2. Novodeviči.JPG: -1
3. Novodevichy Monastery.jpg: +1 
3. Novodievivhi-p1030345.jpg: -1 
=>
File:Russie - Moscou - Novodevichy 4.jpg: Declined. <--
File:Novodeviči.JPG: Declined.
File:Novodevichy Monastery.jpg: Promoted.
File:Novodievivhi-p1030345.jpg: Declined.
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
suggested by Mile (talk) on 2010-06-21 10:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Novodevichy Convent, Moscow
Reason:
more buildings in the image -- suggested by Mile (talk)
Scores: 
1. Russie - Moscou - Novodevichy 4.jpg: 0
2. Novodeviči.JPG: -1 <--
3. Novodevichy Monastery.jpg: +1 
3. Novodievivhi-p1030345.jpg: -1 
=>
File:Russie - Moscou - Novodevichy 4.jpg: Declined.
File:Novodeviči.JPG: Declined. <--
File:Novodevichy Monastery.jpg: Promoted.
File:Novodievivhi-p1030345.jpg: Declined.
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Ikar.us (talk) on 2010-06-21 10:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Novodevichy Convent, Moscow
Reason:
overview of most of the complex in one image -- Ikar.us (talk)

 Comment There is a high-rise building on this viewpoint. If anyone takes a photo from there, it has very good chances. --Ikar.us (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Question I was here some years ago, but I don't really remember. Is it now as it was on this pic ?--Jebulon (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Roads and vehicles have a different appearance, but their ground plot and the overall situation looks much the same on the Google map. Even the small driveway approaching from the left seems to have a tarmac successor. (But File:Nikolskaya tower, Novodevichy convent.jpg looks frightening.) --Ikar.us (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the information about the difference of appearance of roads and vehicles and macadam at the end of the XIXth century and at the beginning of the XXIst, my precious friend ... I'm sure you know that politic matters here are different too, and that's why my question (you did not answer) concerned the building (destruction ? reconstruction ? restorations ?) complex inside the walls... Well, if this pic is the more complete, then I  Support (I like vintage views, too...)--Jebulon (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the short period when the monastery was completely secularized, the facility was assigned to the state history museum. From 1944 on it was again partly in religious use. No evidence for any destructions. Restorations have been performed, of course (thus he scaffold problem), but without major changes. Transfiguration cathedral looks white on the painting, but has much red now. I should link detail photos to make it clearer. --Ikar.us (talk) 07:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        ✓ Done image links. --Ikar.us (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • PS. Thank you for voting; I feared that this MVR would remain undecided. --Ikar.us (talk) 23:04, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scores: 
1. Russie - Moscou - Novodevichy 4.jpg: 0
2. Novodeviči.JPG: -1
3. Novodevichy Monastery.jpg: +1 <--
3. Novodievivhi-p1030345.jpg: -1 
=>
File:Russie - Moscou - Novodevichy 4.jpg: Declined.
File:Novodeviči.JPG: Declined.
File:Novodevichy Monastery.jpg: Promoted. <--
File:Novodievivhi-p1030345.jpg: Declined.
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
Ikar.us (talk) on 2010-06-21 10:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Novodevichy Convent, Moscow
Reason:
another selection of buildings -- Ikar.us (talk)
Scores: 
1. Russie - Moscou - Novodevichy 4.jpg: 0
2. Novodeviči.JPG: -1
3. Novodevichy Monastery.jpg: +1 
3. Novodievivhi-p1030345.jpg: -1 <--
=>
File:Russie - Moscou - Novodevichy 4.jpg: Declined.
File:Novodeviči.JPG: Declined.
File:Novodevichy Monastery.jpg: Promoted.
File:Novodievivhi-p1030345.jpg: Declined. <--
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

St. Joseph church in Žulová

[edit]
   

View opposition
Nominated by:
Pudelek (talk) on 2010-06-17 09:29 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Joseph church in Žulová
Reason:
A very interesting object from the Czech Republic - the tower was part of castle Friedberg -- Pudelek (talk)

 Neutral The image shows the tower very well but the church itself is not visible. Does this comply with the rule illustrates well? Lycaon (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good point. I think the church would be an average small town church and hardly worth a scope without the special tower. There's at least enough visible of the nave to understand the proportions of the building, so nothing essential missing IMO. But I set up an MVR with the second image, which shows a bit more of the side facade. --Ikar.us (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Question I'm sorry, I don't know this place, and then I don't really understand with this image how the tower "works" with the church... Maybe a scope named "tower of..." could be better ?--Jebulon (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] 
Scores: 
1. Žulová - kostel svatého Josefa.JPG: 0 <--
2. Žulová - kostel svatého Josefa1.JPG: +1
=>
File:Žulová - kostel svatého Josefa.JPG: Declined. <--
File:Žulová - kostel svatého Josefa1.JPG: Promoted.
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Ikar.us (talk) on 2010-06-21 11:18 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Joseph church in Žulová
Reason:
a bit more of the side facade visible -- Ikar.us (talk)

 Support this --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:25, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] 

Scores: 
1. Žulová - kostel svatého Josefa.JPG: 0
2. Žulová - kostel svatého Josefa1.JPG: +1 <--
=>
File:Žulová - kostel svatého Josefa.JPG: Declined.
File:Žulová - kostel svatého Josefa1.JPG: Promoted. <--
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Nikon D3000

[edit]
   

View opposition
Nominated by:
The High Fin Sperm Whale on 2010-06-15 04:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Nikon D3000

 Oppose as not yet eligible for VI status. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it cannot at present become a valued image since it currently fails valued image criterion 5 (should be geocoded, but is not). "All images are expected to be geocoded unless it would not be appropriate to do so". It doesn't mention any rationale for exemption I have not reviewed the nomination against all the criteria, but if you are able to fix this issue and would like me to re-evaluate the image please leave me a message on my talk page. -- Lycaon (talk) 06:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the sense of coordinates of a camera. --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or one follows guidelines and geocodes, or one documents that it has a reason to be exempted and then one doesn't gecodes. No in-betweens. Lycaon (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Still, I don't see why this needs Geocoding. What difference does it make whether it's in Vancouver or Dhaka? --The High Fin Sperm Whale 03:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that he wants you to formally claim the exception. Usually reviewers just fix formal errors. :-( --Ikar.us (talk) 10:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Asking for a geocode here is ridiculous IMO, but nonetheless, it's not best in scope. Reflections, background, that theft protection thing ... nope, sorry. -- H005 23:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 3 oppose =>
declined. Ikar.us (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scores: 
1. D3000 Nikon.jpg: -2 <--
2. Nikon D3000 by Carschten.jpg: -1
3. Nikon D3000 with Lens 18-55mm.jpg: -2 
=>
File:D3000 Nikon.jpg: Declined. <--
File:Nikon D3000 by Carschten.jpg: Declined.
File:Nikon D3000 with Lens 18-55mm.jpg: Declined.
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
suggested by Nilfanion (talk) on 2010-06-21 21:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Nikon D3000

 Oppose - Not geocoded. I'll be very strict about geotags, and I shall oppose every image that lacks both geotag, and a reasonable explanation for why geolocation is irrelevant. --Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 16:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose =>
declined. Ikar.us (talk)
Scores: 
1. D3000 Nikon.jpg: -2
2. Nikon D3000 by Carschten.jpg: -1 <--
3. Nikon D3000 with Lens 18-55mm.jpg: -2 
=>
File:D3000 Nikon.jpg: Declined.
File:Nikon D3000 by Carschten.jpg: Declined. <--
File:Nikon D3000 with Lens 18-55mm.jpg: Declined.
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition
Nominated by:
suggested by Nilfanion (talk) on 2010-06-21 21:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Nikon D3000
Result: 0 support, 2 oppose =>
declined. Ikar.us (talk) 08:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scores: 
1. D3000 Nikon.jpg: -2
2. Nikon D3000 by Carschten.jpg: -1
3. Nikon D3000 with Lens 18-55mm.jpg: -2  <--
=>
File:D3000 Nikon.jpg: Declined.
File:Nikon D3000 by Carschten.jpg: Declined.
File:Nikon D3000 with Lens 18-55mm.jpg: Declined.  <--
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Closed_most_valued_reviews/2010/06&oldid=883688694"