Comment In my view, this is the best image in the scope concerning the perspective correction and one of the best concerning the light. But we should put here the most informative photo of this subject. Close to the presented here main building of the cathedral there is a high tower that is especially important in the whole composition even both buildings are inseparable as an architectural ensemble. So I consider some “Most Valued Review” so that we can compare this image with the ones that include the tower.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 13:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I haven't made up my mind yet, and I would like to look for and compare the building dates of the cathedral and of the tower. However, could Albertus teolog add his second image to the MVR? --Myrabella (talk) 22:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I didn't include this because the crop on the bottom is very tight, and the light had deteriorated in the two minutes between the shots. --Ikar.us (talk) 12:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The tower seems here a bit less twisted and in a more faithful position than in the other similar candidate; moreover, the cathedral is free of scaffolds. The most valuable to me. --Myrabella (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Here we see the the baroque facade and its two towers, and also the dome (though partially) with its lantern and the crown. This dome seems an important feature of this church ([1]). --Myrabella (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Firstly, I would like to know if the community here likes this scope. If you are positive I'm thinking about opening a "Most Valued Review".--MrPanyGoff (talk) 21:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tight crop, tilted, dark grayish colours. Moreover, there are distracting people in the foreground that are cut in some confusing way.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 10:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:
I think this one presents the building better. It is well composed, brighter and there are few people that are not distracting here. -- MrPanyGoff (talk)
Support The STRABAG sign is ugly, but the lesser evil. It's somehow informative, because it indicates thet the interior has changed. --Ikar.us (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I have to oppose on criterion 3 here. IMO this is not the best view for this kind of fungus. A top view does not nicely reveal the 3D cup shape. If this specimen is still there, I'd suggest a re-shoot but not from straight above. Lycaon (talk) 04:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm terribly sorry - I like all your images - but they're often popular locations, thus many contestants are available. Here, is a very similar view, but with transparent trees, and a slightly different perpective, which shows the left side better, not hiding anything else. --Ikar.us (talk) 16:43, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeas 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". 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. --Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 18:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC) - Now fixed --Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page!19:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the geocoding, and added that it is a studio shot. @Rastaman3000 and Lycaon: You could do that yourself, instead of opposing the image. Yann (talk) 07:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you think so, fine with me. I had the impression the species is well recognizable in all the pics. I opened a MVR nevertheless. --Quartl (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not being familiar with MVR, I have to ask: It's necessary to include votes against the other candidates, since I've already chose one of the images as the MV? Flávio, o Maddoxgo!15:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:
I'm attempting to revive this discussion, as I believe we have a better image of Dilma since this file was given VI status, namely, Dilma Rousseff 2010.jpg. In the other picture, she's facing the camera directly, rather than looking upwards, and is smiling. In addition, here she's wearing a wig, instead of her current hairstyle. This one's inferior, in my opinion. See also: Previous reviews -- Missionary
Info -- This is the present VI, being challenged by the other picture in the MVR. Please add new comments and votes below.
Reason:
Good representative photo. Good quality. It gives the idea of businesslike manners and the political occupation of the subject. Also, I think that here Dilma looks most beautiful ;) --MrPanyGoff (talk) 16:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC) -- MrPanyGoff (talk)[reply]
Support Whereas the first nomination might show anybody from an astronaut to an actress, this one really does illustrate her being a politician. --MichaelBueker (talk) 20:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Here she was wearing a wig, during her battle against cancer. The natural hairstyle shown on file Dilma Rousseff 2010.jpg is that with which people are most familiar. Thus, this picture is not so good in terms of illustration. Missionary (talk) 23:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose She doesn't look so now. And it is not because she is here behind microphone that she is a politician. IMO, she looks more "politician" on the first photo, even president Lula da Silva is cropped out from the picture!!!!--Jebulon (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]