Commons:Closed most valued reviews/2022/06

African grass blue (Zizeeria knysna) underside

View opposition Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2016-11-15 23:08 (UTC) Scope: Zizeeria knysna (African grass blue) ventral  Support Best in scope. lNeverCry 02:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Scores: 1. African grass blue (Zizeeria knysna) underside.jpg: +0 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. African grass blue (Zizeeria knysna) underside Principe 2.jpg: +2 => File:African grass blue (Zizeeria knysna) underside.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:African grass blue (Zizeeria knysna) underside Principe 2.jpg: Promoted. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2021-12-18 11:33 (UTC) Scope: Zizeeria knysna (African grass blue) underside  Support Much better indeed. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)  Support Agree - better.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC) Scores: 1. African grass blue (Zizeeria knysna) underside.jpg: +0 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. African grass blue (Zizeeria knysna) underside Principe 2.jpg: +2 => File:African grass blue (Zizeeria knysna) underside.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:African grass blue (Zizeeria knysna) underside Principe 2.jpg: Promoted. --George Chernilevsky talk 13:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Messier 45 - Pleiades star cluster

View promotion Nominated by: Eusebius (talk) on 2008-12-21 13:37 (UTC) Scope: Messier 45 - Pleiades star cluster  Support Fulfills relevant criteria. Lycaon (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2008 (UTC) Scores: 1. ComputerHotline - M45 (by).jpg: 0 2. Pleiades large.jpg: +1 <-- => File:ComputerHotline - M45 (by).jpg: Declined. File:Pleiades large.jpg: Promoted. <-- --Eusebius (talk) 13:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)  Support per my remarks on the suggested replacement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC) Scores: 1. Pleiades large.jpg: +1 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Pleiades large.png: -1 => File:Pleiades large.jpg: Promoted. File:Pleiades large.png: Declined. -- George Chernilevsky talk 15:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: ToBeFree (talk) on 2022-01-08 23:25 (UTC) Scope: Messier 45 – Pleiades star cluster Reason: The original file is a 49.1 MiB TIFF ([1]). I have downloaded it and converted it to a lossless PNG using imagemagick. The current Valued Image (.jpg) was promoted 31 December 2008 (1.99 MB JPEG). Recompressing to a quality-100 JPEG, however, takes over 20MiB, and even this isn't lossless. So the current Valued Image is a very lossy JPEG that can be replaced by this lossless PNG. -- ToBeFree (talk)  Oppose The JPG is slightly but noticeably sharper at review size. I don't understand why I can't edit its entry here to support, but considering that this is VIC, how lossy an image is when viewed at larger sizes is irrelevant. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC) Scores: 1. Pleiades large.jpg: +1 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Pleiades large.png: -1 => File:Pleiades large.jpg: Promoted. File:Pleiades large.png: Declined. -- George Chernilevsky talk 15:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Dimorphic or Lycoa acraea (Acraea lycoa lycoa) female dorsal

View opposition Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2016-12-02 12:29 (UTC) Scope: Acraea lycoa (Lycoa acraea) dorsal  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2016 (UTC)  Oppose The greater part of the butterfly is unsharp. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)  Comment Of course it is not a perfect image. Still valuable for identifying the species. Remember, I could say for many VIs of views: 'The greater part of the xxx is not visible' Charles (talk) 10:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC) I think images with basic technical defects should not receive any awards. VI is not QI, but there are some borders of quality that should be taken into account when evaluating images. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC) This image is not of a landscape or immobile building. Charles (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)  Support This may have a sharpness issue, but it's the best we have currently. I don't think the sharpness issue is damaging to the EV too much either. The butterfly is still clearly and easily identifiable. lNeverCry 18:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC) Result: 2 support, 1 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC) Scores: 1. Lycoa acraea (Acraea lycoa).jpg: +0 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Dimorphic acraea (Acraea lycoa lycoa) female.jpg: +2 => File:Lycoa acraea (Acraea lycoa).jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Dimorphic acraea (Acraea lycoa lycoa) female.jpg: Promoted. -- George Chernilevsky talk 15:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-01-17 20:58 (UTC) Scope: Acraea lycoa lycoa (Dimorphic acraea) female dorsal  Support Completely sharp. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)  Support much better --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC) Scores: 1. Lycoa acraea (Acraea lycoa).jpg: +0 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Dimorphic acraea (Acraea lycoa lycoa) female.jpg: +2 => File:Lycoa acraea (Acraea lycoa).jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Dimorphic acraea (Acraea lycoa lycoa) female.jpg: Promoted. -- George Chernilevsky talk 15:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Hewitson's acraea (Acraea alciope) male dorsal

View opposition Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2016-11-29 13:19 (UTC) Scope: Acraea alciope (Hewitson's acraea) dorsal  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC) Scores: 1. Hewitson's acraea (Acraea alciope).jpg: +0 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Hewitson’s acraea (Acraea alciope) male.jpg: +1 => File:Hewitson's acraea (Acraea alciope).jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Hewitson’s acraea (Acraea alciope) male.jpg: Promoted. -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-01-17 20:22 (UTC) Scope: Acraea alciope (Hewitson’s acraea) male dorsal  Support much better --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC) Scores: 1. Hewitson's acraea (Acraea alciope).jpg: +0 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Hewitson’s acraea (Acraea alciope) male.jpg: +1 => File:Hewitson's acraea (Acraea alciope).jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Hewitson’s acraea (Acraea alciope) male.jpg: Promoted. -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Commerzbank Tower

View opposition Nominated by: —Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2020-03-01 03:31 (UTC) Scope: Commerzbank Tower  Support Useful & used. Difficult choice. There are many photos of this building.--Famberhorst (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Indeed, there are. One thing I have found is that more notable scopes tend to not have valued images because of the difficulty in reviewing them, whereas scopes with one or two images often do have VIs. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 12:10, 2 March 2020 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)  Oppose Not as good as the other file. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Scores: 1. Frankfurt Am Main-Commerzbank Tower vom Rathenauplatz-20100808.jpg: -1 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Commerzbank Tower Frankfurt.jpg: +1 => File:Frankfurt Am Main-Commerzbank Tower vom Rathenauplatz-20100808.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Commerzbank Tower Frankfurt.jpg: Promoted. -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: —Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2022-02-06 23:03 (UTC) Scope: Commerzbank Tower  Question Clearly superior, but aren't we looking at the other side? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)  Comment Yes, it's a 3-sided building, but I don't think multiple scopes are needed for different angles since the building is relatively uniform. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)  Comment The colors and shapes look very different to me in the two photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2022 (UTC)  Comment The color difference looks minimal to me and is probably because the first photo is backlit. As for the shape... we're merely looking at it from an adjacent side, so the spire is now on the opposite side of the building. Not much else looks out of place to me. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)  Question The black thing on the right side? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)  Comment That is a separate building, the Omniturm. Personally I thought it was obvious that it was a different building, but I'm familiar with the buildings in the area, and now that you mention it I can see how people might get confused. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 14:40, 13 February 2022 (UTC) OK,  Support as best in scope, but it would be good to improve the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC) Scores: 1. Frankfurt Am Main-Commerzbank Tower vom Rathenauplatz-20100808.jpg: -1 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Commerzbank Tower Frankfurt.jpg: +1 => File:Frankfurt Am Main-Commerzbank Tower vom Rathenauplatz-20100808.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Commerzbank Tower Frankfurt.jpg: Promoted. -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Carinapex minutissima

View opposition Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2017-02-20 18:15 (UTC) Scope: Carinapex minutissima, shell  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Yann (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Scores: 1. Carinapex minutissima 01.jpg: +0 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Carinapex minutissima 02.jpg: +3 => File:Carinapex minutissima 01.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Carinapex minutissima 02.jpg: Promoted. -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2022-02-22 07:01 (UTC) Scope: Carinapex minutissima, shell Reason: Meanwhile I got a much better specimen --Llez (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC) -- Llez (talk)  Support Actually better --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)  Support Agree - better. --GRDN711 (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2022 (UTC)  Support Agree - better.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC) Scores: 1. Carinapex minutissima 01.jpg: +0 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Carinapex minutissima 02.jpg: +3 => File:Carinapex minutissima 01.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Carinapex minutissima 02.jpg: Promoted. -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

"Speyerkreuz" in Trier Eurenerstraße 1820

View opposition Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2021-01-16 17:16 (UTC) Scope: Wayside cross (1820), so-called "Speyerkreuz" in Trier, Eurener Straße.  Support Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)  Oppose Not as well lit, more distracting background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC) Scores: 1. Trier Speyerkreuz Eurenerstraße 1820.jpg: -1(current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Carinapex minutissima 02.jpg: +2 => File:Trier Speyerkreuz Eurenerstraße 1820.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Trier Speyerkreuz (1820).jpg: Promoted. -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2022-05-16 21:43 (UTC) Scope: Wayside cross (1820), so-called "Speyerkreuz" in Trier, Eurener Straße. Reason: Better lighting and sharpness. -- Palauenc05 (talk)  Best in Scope, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 12:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)  Support Better lit, less distracting background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC) Scores: 1. Trier Speyerkreuz Eurenerstraße 1820.jpg: -1(current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Carinapex minutissima 02.jpg: +2 => File:Trier Speyerkreuz Eurenerstraße 1820.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Trier Speyerkreuz (1820).jpg: Promoted. -- George Chernilevsky talk 17:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Hypolycaena antifaunus antifaunus

View opposition Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2017-05-19 09:16 (UTC) Scope: Hypolycaena antifaunus antifaunus (Large fairy hairstreak) male ventral  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Zoppo59 (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC) Scores: 1. Large fairy hairstreak (Hypolycaena antifaunus antifaunus) male underside.jpg: +0 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Large fairy hairstreak (Hypolycaena antifaunus antifaunus) male 2.jpg: +1 => File:Large fairy hairstreak (Hypolycaena antifaunus antifaunus) male underside.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Large fairy hairstreak (Hypolycaena antifaunus antifaunus) male 2.jpg: Promoted. --George Chernilevsky talk 17:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-01-18 21:18 (UTC) Scope: Hypolycaena antifaunus antifaunus (Large fairy hairstreak) male underside  Best in Scope -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC) Scores: 1. Large fairy hairstreak (Hypolycaena antifaunus antifaunus) male underside.jpg: +0 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Large fairy hairstreak (Hypolycaena antifaunus antifaunus) male 2.jpg: +1 => File:Large fairy hairstreak (Hypolycaena antifaunus antifaunus) male underside.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Large fairy hairstreak (Hypolycaena antifaunus antifaunus) male 2.jpg: Promoted. --George Chernilevsky talk 17:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Common chalk blue (Thermoniphas micylus)

View opposition Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-01-31 15:06 (UTC) Scope: Eicochrysops hippocrates (White-tipped blue) underside Result: 0 support, 0 oppose => undecided. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC) Scores: 1. Common chalk blue (Thermoniphas micylus).jpg: +0 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Common chalk blue (Thermoniphas micylus micylus) underside.jpg: +1 => File:White-tipped blue (Eicochrysops hippocrates) underside.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Common chalk blue (Thermoniphas micylus micylus) underside.jpg: Promoted. --George Chernilevsky talk 18:12, 8 June 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-01-18 21:44 (UTC) Scope: Thermoniphas micylus micylus (Common chalk blue) underside Reason: previous VI incorrect id -- Charlesjsharp (talk)  Support. Meets all criteria -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC) Scores: 1. Common chalk blue (Thermoniphas micylus).jpg: +0 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Common chalk blue (Thermoniphas micylus micylus) underside.jpg: +1 => File:White-tipped blue (Eicochrysops hippocrates) underside.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Common chalk blue (Thermoniphas micylus micylus) underside.jpg: Promoted. --George Chernilevsky talk 18:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Bright bush blue (Cacyreus audeoudi)

View promotion Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-01-31 15:07 (UTC) Scope: Cacyreus lingeus (Common bush blue) underside  Support Useful & used.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Scores: 1. Common bush blue (Cacyreus lingeus) underside Principe.jpg: +0 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Bright bush blue (Cacyreus audeoudi).jpg: +1 => File:Common bush blue (Cacyreus lingeus) underside Principe.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Bright bush blue (Cacyreus audeoudi).jpg: Promoted. --George Chernilevsky talk 18:49, 8 June 2022 (UTC) Note: promoted in other category -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-01-19 14:04 (UTC) Scope: Cacyreus audeoudi (Bright bush blue) underside Reason: id of existing VI incorrect. Apologies. -- Charlesjsharp (talk)  Support. Meets all criteria -- George Chernilevsky talk 16:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC) Scores: 1. Common bush blue (Cacyreus lingeus) underside Principe.jpg: +0 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Bright bush blue (Cacyreus audeoudi).jpg: +1 => File:Common bush blue (Cacyreus lingeus) underside Principe.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Bright bush blue (Cacyreus audeoudi).jpg: Promoted. --George Chernilevsky talk 18:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)