Commons:Closed most valued reviews/2012/07

Aishwarya Rai

File:Aishwarya invited at the opening of Bvlgari Hotel in London 02.jpg View opposition Nominated by: Boseritwik (talk) on 2012-06-18 09:41 (UTC) Scope: Aishwarya Rai Scores: 1. Aishwarya invited at the opening of Bvlgari Hotel in London 03.jpg: +0 2. Aishwarya invited at the opening of Bvlgari Hotel in London 02.jpg: +0 3. AishwaryaRai.jpg: +0 4. Aishwarya rai Milan .jpg: +0 5. Aishwarya rai 1(cropped).jpg: +1 => File:Aishwarya invited at the opening of Bvlgari Hotel in London 03.jpg: Declined. File:Aishwarya invited at the opening of Bvlgari Hotel in London 02.jpg: Declined. File:AishwaryaRai.jpg: Declined. File:Aishwarya rai Milan .jpg: Declined. File:Aishwarya rai 1(cropped).jpg: Promoted. --MrPanyGoff 06:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View opposition Nominated by: Yann (talk) on 2012-06-18 17:22 (UTC) Scope: Aishwarya Rai  Comment I think this one is better. Yann (talk) 17:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)  Support I think so --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)  Oppose Resolution is low (though it does barely meet our minimum), and this seems fuzzy and out of focus. I think we have better images. cmadler (talk) 13:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Scores: 1. Aishwarya invited at the opening of Bvlgari Hotel in London 03.jpg: +0 2. Aishwarya invited at the opening of Bvlgari Hotel in London 02.jpg: +0 3. AishwaryaRai.jpg: +0 4. Aishwarya rai Milan .jpg: +0 5. Aishwarya rai 1(cropped).jpg: +1 => File:Aishwarya invited at the opening of Bvlgari Hotel in London 03.jpg: Declined. File:Aishwarya invited at the opening of Bvlgari Hotel in London 02.jpg: Declined. File:AishwaryaRai.jpg: Declined. File:Aishwarya rai Milan .jpg: Declined. File:Aishwarya rai 1(cropped).jpg: Promoted. --MrPanyGoff 06:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Amy Jackson

[[File:|160px]] View Nominated by: Yjenith (talk) on 2012-03-11 23:25 (UTC) Scope: Amy Jackson  Oppose Copyrighted, no evidence of permission, so I am nominating for deletion. (Also, not geocoded!) cmadler (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)  Comment This photograph is released under creative commons Share like 3.0 license. The more appropriate copyright tag is added. Also geocoded for further review. --Yjenith (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Now  Support cmadler (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)  Comment Who is this girl actually?--MrPanyGoff 20:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC) IMDB page cmadler (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC) This link doesn't helps a lot... I tend to oppose even I feel this nomination as some kind of insult.--MrPanyGoff 21:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)  Info She is essentially a Bollywood actress. Article seems acceptable in en:WP (and 3 other WP), see en:Amy Jackson. --Myrabella (talk) 07:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC) She is essentially a beauty pageant titleholder and not an actress at all. Since 2010 she just has tried to launch an actress career. There are thousands of girls like her. It seems that we have to place all of them in one group together with Sophia Loren, Gérard Philipe, Michel Piccoli, Jeremy Irons, Robert De Niro, Charles Chaplin, Claude Monet... Shame on all of us... We do nothing here. Alas, we have no choice since we work under the dictate of the crowd. Unfortunately, from a long time many articles in wikipedia cannot be used for reference at all. These articles can be marked for deletion.--MrPanyGoff 09:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC) Actually, this nomination seems quite promotional, linked with this new movie release: en:Ekk Deewana Tha where she has the leading female role. --Myrabella (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. MrPanyGoff 22:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)  Comment Because of the two VI in this scope I open this MVR. This photo here is the initial VI.--MrPanyGoff 08:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)  Support OK, this one is better. Yann (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)  Comment but you can't even see her face properly cause she is not looking at the camera, the crop is unfortunate cause the top of her head is missing,the blur is excessive with parts of her hair and right shoulder being blured. Just wanna know why you think this is better so atleast I can be clear about the criteria for a picture being VI.Boseritwik (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)  Support I still support this one as best in scope and meeting all criteria. Certainly the edges of her hair and right shoulder are blurred, but her face is in focus at a high resolution. Also important to the present comparison, in the other image her forehead, chin, and cheeks are washed out by the flash/glare. cmadler (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Scores: 1. Amy jackson.jpg: +2 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Amy Jackson attends press conference for 'Thaandavam' at London 04.jpg: +0 (second VI within same scope) <-- => : Promoted. File:Amy Jackson attends press conference for 'Thaandavam' at London 04.jpg: Declined. --MrPanyGoff 05:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)  Info Opening MVR. The other nomination can be found here. pandakekok9 08:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)  Support - The other one has higher resolution, but we're supposed to judge the photos at review size, and in review size, this photo is much bigger. I also prefer the background, but that could be because I have sore eyes tonight. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Scores: 1. Amy Jackson headshot.jpg: +1 2. Amy jackson.jpg: +1 (current VI within same scope) <-- => File:Amy Jackson headshot.jpg: Undecided. : Undecided so remains current VI within same scope. <-- Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	File:Amy Jackson attends press conference for 'Thaandavam' at London 04.jpg View opposition Nominated by: Boseritwik (talk) on 2012-06-18 09:37 (UTC) Scope: Amy Jackson  Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. MrPanyGoff 20:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)  Comment Because of the two VI in this scope I open this MVR. This photo here has just been promoted VI.--MrPanyGoff 08:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC) Scores: 1. Amy jackson.jpg: +2 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Amy Jackson attends press conference for 'Thaandavam' at London 04.jpg: +0 (second VI within same scope) <-- => File:Amy jackson.jpg: Promoted. [[:]]: Declined. --MrPanyGoff 05:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Tim Daly

View Nominated by: George Ho (talk) on 2012-06-29 20:10 (UTC) Scope: Tim Daly Scores: 1. Tim Daly Shankbone 2009 Tribeca.jpg: +0 2. Tim Daly at the 2009 Tribeca Film Festival.jpg: +0 => File:Tim Daly Shankbone 2009 Tribeca.jpg: Undecided. File:Tim Daly at the 2009 Tribeca Film Festival.jpg: Undecided. --MrPanyGoff 21:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View Nominated by: George Ho (talk) on 2012-06-29 20:13 (UTC) Scope: Tim Daly Scores: 1. Tim Daly Shankbone 2009 Tribeca.jpg: +0 2. Tim Daly at the 2009 Tribeca Film Festival.jpg: +0 => File:Tim Daly Shankbone 2009 Tribeca.jpg: Undecided. File:Tim Daly at the 2009 Tribeca Film Festival.jpg: Undecided. --MrPanyGoff 21:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Rupert Murdoch

View opposition Nominated by: George Ho (talk) on 2012-06-30 18:09 (UTC) Scope: Rupert Murdoch Scores: 1. Rupert Murdoch - WEF Davos 2007.jpg: +0 2. Murdoch at World Economic Forum 2009.jpg: +1 => File:Rupert Murdoch - WEF Davos 2007.jpg: Declined. File:Murdoch at World Economic Forum 2009.jpg: Promoted. --MrPanyGoff 09:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: George Ho (talk) on 2017-02-17 19:52 (UTC) Scope: Rupert Murdoch  Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC) Scores: 1. Rupert Murdoch - WEF Davos 2007.jpg: +0 2. Murdoch at World Economic Forum 2009.jpg: +1 => File:Rupert Murdoch - WEF Davos 2007.jpg: Declined. File:Murdoch at World Economic Forum 2009.jpg: Promoted. --MrPanyGoff 09:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)  Support - In my opinion, this remains a better picture than the other one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Scores: 1. Murdoch at World Economic Forum 2009.jpg: +1 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Rupert Murdoch - Flickr - Eva Rinaldi Celebrity and Live Music Photographer.jpg: -1 => File:Murdoch at World Economic Forum 2009.jpg: Promoted and so continues as current VI. <-- File:Rupert Murdoch - Flickr - Eva Rinaldi Celebrity and Live Music Photographer.jpg: Declined. --DeFacto (talk). 18:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Bedroom in Arles by van Gogh (Musée d'Orsay)

View Nominated by: Paris 16 (talk) on 2012-07-04 04:36 (UTC) Scope: Bedroom in Arles by van Gogh (Musée d'Orsay) Reason: Without frame -- Paris 16 (talk)  Comment I suggest a scope: Bedroom in Arles by van Gogh (Musée d'Orsay) --MrPanyGoff 06:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)  Comment Alas, it is very difficult to decide which one better presents the original colours.--MrPanyGoff 20:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC) Scores: 1. La Chambre à Arles, by Vincent van Gogh, from C2RMF frame cropped.jpg: +0 2. La Chambre à Arles, by Vincent van Gogh, from C2RMF.jpg: +0 => File:La Chambre à Arles, by Vincent van Gogh, from C2RMF frame cropped.jpg: Undecided. File:La Chambre à Arles, by Vincent van Gogh, from C2RMF.jpg: Undecided. --MrPanyGoff 21:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View Nominated by: Paris 16 (talk) on 2012-07-04 03:55 (UTC) Scope: Bedroom in Arles by van Gogh (Musée d'Orsay) Reason: Featured picture -- Paris 16 (talk) Scores: 1. La Chambre à Arles, by Vincent van Gogh, from C2RMF frame cropped.jpg: +0 2. La Chambre à Arles, by Vincent van Gogh, from C2RMF.jpg: +0 => File:La Chambre à Arles, by Vincent van Gogh, from C2RMF frame cropped.jpg: Undecided. File:La Chambre à Arles, by Vincent van Gogh, from C2RMF.jpg: Undecided. --MrPanyGoff 21:11, 11 July 2012 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Bat's Head, Dorset

View (withdrawn) Nominated by: MrPanyGoff on 2012-07-06 07:14 (UTC) Scope: Bat's Head, Dorset  I withdraw my nomination because of the set nomination.--MrPanyGoff 18:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Can be closed as declined	View (withdrawn) Nominated by: MrPanyGoff on 2012-07-06 07:14 (UTC) Scope: Bat's Head, Dorset  I withdraw my nomination because of the set nomination.--MrPanyGoff 18:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Can be closed as declined
View (withdrawn) Nominated by: MrPanyGoff on 2012-07-06 07:14 (UTC) Scope: Bat's Head, Dorset  Support Difficult choice, but the presence of person, here gives a better idea of ​​the scale --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)  Comment I agree that this image is best if one must be chosen, but I wonder if it wouldn't be better to illustrate this with a set of one photo from each side? cmadler (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2012 (UTC)  Comment I think so --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)  I withdraw my nomination because of the set nomination.--MrPanyGoff 18:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Can be closed as declined	View (withdrawn) Nominated by: MrPanyGoff on 2012-07-06 07:14 (UTC) Scope: Bat's Head, Dorset  I withdraw my nomination because of the set nomination.--MrPanyGoff 18:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC) Can be closed as declined

Brandenburg Gate at night

View opposition Nominated by: Wolf im Wald on 2012-07-11 18:21 (UTC) Scope: Brandenburg Gate at night Used in: de:Brandenburger Tor Reason: best quality in scope. -- Wolf im Wald Previous reviews Scores: 1. Brandenburger Tor nachts.jpg: +0 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Brandenburger Tor nachts 2012-07.jpg: +3 => File:Brandenburger Tor nachts.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Brandenburger Tor nachts 2012-07.jpg: Promoted. --MrPanyGoff 20:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Wolf im Wald (de) on 2012-07-11 18:21 (UTC) Scope: Brandenburg Gate at night  Support For me, the bright streetlights on either side detract somewhat from this view of the gate, and while the lights at the right could be easily cropped, removing the lights at left would necessitate also cropping part of the guardhouse. Despite this shortcoming, however, I think this image is best because the lighting on the gate (and especially on the quadriga) is more muted, resulting in less of a washed-out look. cmadler (talk) 13:00, 12 July 2012 (UTC)  Support --Paris 16 (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)  Comment Times are changing... See that 2009 discussion where a nominated image for the scope "Brandenburg Gate at night" had been declined because of the scope, deemed too narrow at that time: Commons:Valued image candidates/Brandenburger Tor abends.jpg. --Myrabella (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC) File:Brandenburger Tor nachts.jpg, the other file in this MVR, was promoted to VI back in May. So if we reject this image, we retain the other. It seems as though you want to demote the other (current) VI in this scope without replacing it? cmadler (talk) 09:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC) My remark was just for the record, to register that the interpretation of the guidelines has changed between 2009 and now. It is a noticeable evolution of the VIC "jurisprudence", worthy to be pointed out. --Myrabella (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)  Support Better exposure control than in the alternative. Marginal value difference. Concerning the scope I am OK with the night scope as the Brandenburger Tor is very notable and has a special night appearance. That would probably also have been my opinion in 2009, if I had voted. But nevertheless interesting observation by Myrabella. --Slaunger (talk) 06:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Scores: 1. Brandenburger Tor nachts.jpg: +0 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Brandenburger Tor nachts 2012-07.jpg: +3 => File:Brandenburger Tor nachts.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Brandenburger Tor nachts 2012-07.jpg: Promoted. --MrPanyGoff 20:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Théâtre Graslin, Nantes (exterior)

View opposition Nominated by: MrPanyGoff (talk) on 2012-07-10 06:42 (UTC) Scope: Théâtre Graslin, Nantes (exterior) Previous reviews  Comment Again doubled VI. I open a MVR for seven days from now on (according to the rules).--MrPanyGoff 06:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)  Support I tend to prefer this one, because I see a part of the roof, and then it gives me more informations about the building. The other one has a better technical quality but shows only the façade.--Jebulon (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)  Comment I think we need more votes in this MVR. --MrPanyGoff 10:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Scores: 1. Théâtre Graslin (retouch).jpg: +1 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Théâtre Graslin - Place Graslin, Nantes.jpg: +3 => File:Théâtre Graslin (retouch).jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Théâtre Graslin - Place Graslin, Nantes.jpg: Promoted. --MrPanyGoff 16:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: MrPanyGoff on 2012-07-10 06:42 (UTC) Scope: Théâtre Graslin, Nantes (exterior) Previous reviews  Comment Again doubled VI. I open a MVR for seven days from now on (according to the rules).--MrPanyGoff 06:42, 10 July 2012 (UTC)  Support I think this one is better. cmadler (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)  Support Me too.--Paris 16 (talk) 19:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC) I think that the nominator should not vote for his nomination.--MrPanyGoff 20:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC) I am only former nominator.--Paris 16 (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2012 (UTC)  Comment I think we need more votes in this MVR. It can't finish undecided. One of the competitors must be removed.--MrPanyGoff 10:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC) I agree that this can't close undecided. Would you care to vote? cmadler (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC) I can't decide which one is better. Finally, I suppose we should demote the new candidate as not being nominated in accordance with the rules, meaning via MVR.--MrPanyGoff 20:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)  Support I think the lightning condition are a little better here, and for me it "wins" over the fact that a bit more of the roof is seen in the alternative. --Slaunger (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC) Scores: 1. Théâtre Graslin (retouch).jpg: +1 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Théâtre Graslin - Place Graslin, Nantes.jpg: +3 => File:Théâtre Graslin (retouch).jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Théâtre Graslin - Place Graslin, Nantes.jpg: Promoted. --MrPanyGoff 16:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)