Commons:Closed most valued reviews/2016/05

Carol Greider

View opposition Nominated by: Pruneautalk on 2009-10-06 08:18 (UTC) Scope: Carol W. Greider Used in: Loads of places, including en:Carol W. Greider, de:Carol W. Greider, fr:Carol Greider  Comment Also used on the official Nobel foundation announcement: [1] Pruneautalk 2009-10-06 08:18 (UTC)  Request I am ready to support but I have just a tiny remark: the geolocalised data point to an outside place (the street along the university in ACME mapper satellite view). Might this be amended?--Myrabella (talk) 11:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)  Done Pruneautalk 12:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)  Comment I took this picture at the new Campus Westend, a few blocks northeast of the old campus. The geolocalised data point to the old campus. --Gerbil (talk) 08:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)  Support Thanks for these addenda. OK to me, all criteria met. Note: in :en:wikipedia, the article on telomerase dates the discovery of this enzyme to 1985. (1984 in the image description and in en:Carol W. Greider) --Myrabella (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Lycaon (talk) 14:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC) Scores: 1. Carol Greider 2009-01.JPG: +0 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. MVRcadidate3.jpg: +2 => File:Carol Greider 2009-01.JPG: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:GREIDER Carol 2014.jpg: Promoted. --DeFacto (talk). 05:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Storkk (talk) on 2016-05-16 16:48 (UTC) Scope: Category:Carol Greider Used in: Carol W. Greider Reason: Superior image to current VI submitted through OTRS (and subsequently undeleted) -- Storkk (talk)  Comment The image can be beautiful but the caption is not. Both are useful. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC) fleshed out caption using text from the category description. Storkk (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)  Support OK now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC) Scores: 1. Carol Greider 2009-01.JPG: +0 (current VI within same scope) 2. MVRcadidate3.jpg: +2 <-- => File:Carol Greider 2009-01.JPG: Declined and demoted to VI-former. File:GREIDER Carol 2014.jpg: Promoted. <-- --DeFacto (talk). 05:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Nephila pilipes

View Nominated by: Yann (talk) on 2012-02-14 15:36 (UTC) Scope: Nephila pilipes (Giant Wood Spider), female Reason: The best quality with geocoding. -- Yann (talk)  Info I have 3 other images of this species: File:Nephila pilipes, Bhimbetka, Raisen district, Madhya Pradesh, India.jpg, File:Nephila pilipes, Bhimbetka, Raisen district, MP, India.jpg, File:Nephila pilipes, Bhimbetka, Raisen dist, Madhya Pradesh, India.jpg. These are the only ones of high resolution with geocoding. I wonder if subscopes for ventral side and doral side should be created. Do you think that the subspecies can be udentified? Yann (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)  Comment Would be most useful to make a Set with the two faces. (Tu as les deux images, peut être du même individu ce qui serait encore mieux...) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC) OK, done. I suppose it means that this nomination is not needed any more? What about the subspecies? Yann (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC) There is no rule for the subspecies, they are admissible if they are visually different. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC) I mean, this specimen is clearly different, yet it is the same species. Do you know what are the differences between these subpecies? Does the subpecies depend on the location? Yann (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC) The problem of subspecies is little consensus on their side. For the butterflies is quite codified, for spider is to be more difficult because it ay fewer specialists. I know one but for now it is on a mission in Central Africa, even for a few weeks. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC) Result: 0 support, 0 oppose => undecided. George Chernilevsky talk 20:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Scores: 1. Nephila pilipes, Raisen district, MP, India.jpg: 0 <-- 2. Northern golden orb weaver (Nephila pilipes).jpg: -2 => File:Nephila pilipes, Raisen district, MP, India.jpg: Undecided. <-- File:Northern golden orb weaver (Nephila pilipes).jpg: Undecided. --DeFacto (talk). 06:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2016-04-30 20:21 (UTC) Scope: Nephila pilipes (Northern golden orb weaver) female, ventral  Comment There already has promoted image. Should know the sex of the animal. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)  Done sex added. I can't find another promoted image. Charles (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)  Comment This one :File:Nephila pilipes, Raisen district, MP, India.jpg --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)  Comment Thanks. I hadn't seen this as it's a set. Unfortunately, it's not correctly identified, not Nephila pilipes. How do we deselect VI? This is not MVR. Charles (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC) MVR would be technically easier. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)  Oppose IMO, the opposing candidate is Commons:Valued image candidates/Nephila pilipes, which is better as it shows both side of the animal. File:Nephila pilipes, Raisen district, MP, India.jpg also shows the legs better. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)  Comment @Yann: . As I said above, the (existing VI) image that you prefer is not correctly identified. It is not Nephila pilipes. Charles (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)  Comment The question is more difficult than I thought. Our specialist says that we can not determine the question saw the two images that I gave him. It is possible that this is the same species with a subadult. the epigynous are not visible in the photographs. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)  Comment You could change existing VI to reflect this opinion, though I am surprised by it, looking at the markings. I can't see how they would change. Also, as there were a number of similar specimens being photographed, perhaps it is unlikely that they were all sub-adults? An aberration of some sort is possible I suppose if there isn't a known sub-species that fits the images. Charles (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC) Personally I abandoned spider photographs. The recognitions are very difficult, and often requires use of dissection to have certainty for the subspecies.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)  Oppose Per Yann --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC) Scores: 1. Nephila pilipes, Raisen district, MP, India.jpg: 0 2. Northern golden orb weaver (Nephila pilipes).jpg: -2 <-- => File:Nephila pilipes, Raisen district, MP, India.jpg: Undecided. File:Northern golden orb weaver (Nephila pilipes).jpg: Undecided. <-- --DeFacto (talk). 06:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)