Commons:Closed most valued reviews/2023/11

Black-cowled oriole

View opposition Nominated by: Lycaon (talk) on 2010-05-08 10:29 (UTC) Scope: Icterus prosthemelas (Black-cowled Oriole) Reason: Only image on Commons and duly geo-referenced. -- Lycaon (talk)  Support all criteria met --George Chernilevsky talk 14:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Lycaon (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)  Oppose There are better images in the same scope. Low quality. --LexKurochkin (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)  Oppose Meanwhile inferior in this scope. --Milseburg (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)  Oppose Better pictures of this bird backside available. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC) Scores: 1. Commons:Valued image candidates/Icterus prosthemelas.jpg: -3 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Commons:Valued image candidates/Black-cowled oriole (Icterus prosthemelas prosthemelas) Orange Walk.jpg: +3, -1 => File:Icterus prosthemelas.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former <-- File:Black-cowled oriole (Icterus prosthemelas prosthemelas) Orange Walk.jpg: Promoted --Milseburg (talk) 15:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-04-12 17:29 (UTC) Scope: Icterus prosthemelas prosthemelas (Black-cowled oriole) showing back feathers current VIC for image showing chest feathers  Best in Scope, useful and used. Significantly better than the current VI as of 12.04.2023 --[[User:|LexKurhockin]] (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)  Support Significantly better than the current VI --Milseburg (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)  Support agree with the others: better picture for this scope. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)  Comment Charles - suggest scope of this nomination match current VI with excess description "showing back feathers" dropped. --GRDN711 (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC) "showing back feathers" needed as there is another scope with chest feathers GRDN711. The importance of these scopes is demonstrated on final post on my Wikipedia talk page  Oppose @Charlesjsharp: @LexKurochkin: @Milseburg: @Achim Raschka: Charles – I did not see reference to another scope with chest species for this bird and you did not provide a link. Either way, it is not germane to the issue here. Requirements for Value Image scopes are defined in COM:VIS and those are the guidelines to that define the validity of VI scopes which are an essential part of the VI rating. You have a good quality image that is of better quality than the one you are competing against in this MVR and would vote for it if the scopes were the same. Why have you made your VI scope too narrow with the addition of "showing back feathers” as unnecessary description? If you think it is important detail, it should go in the image description. Why are you comparing an image you have identified as sub-species to an image with a higher taxonomy level of species? Per COM:VIS – “If several species are impossible to distinguish visually, then the scope should be at a higher taxonomy level.” --GRDN711 (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)--GRDN711 (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC) I will try to stay calm. Please look at this current VIC. I repeat: The importance of these scopes is demonstrated on final post on my Wikipedia talk page. 21:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)  Comment Charles While being calm is a welcome state of mind, clarity on your VI scope is needed here. Are you stating that the yellow back feathers in this image support that this bird is of the Icterus prosthemelas prosthemelas sub-species as opposed to the I. p. praecox sub-species? Can you really compare it to the other MVR image VI with scope of Icterus prosthemelas species? IMHO the extra description of feather coloration on chest or back is good information to support a VI nomination as I. p. prosthemelas sub-species (already has a VI), but it should not be part of the scope. --GRDN711 (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)  Info I do not see any problem with having rather detailed scopes for birds or any other subject. It is better than too general scope IMO. --LexKurochkin (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)  Comment Hello LexKurochkin Overly detailed scopes tend to take the form of unique description that makes the image appear more valuable than it really is to Commons and can create multiple VI ratings for images of the same bird. Overly detailed scopes are specifically discouraged per COM:VIS. “Note that scope is not a simple description of your image. Rather, it defines a generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example.” There is good reading in COM:VIS on too wide, too narrow (or overly descriptive), and just right scopes. Further good reading is at COM:VIS Domain-specific scope guidelines for animals (includes birds) where the “General rule is: one scope per species…”. It goes on to allow identifiable sub-species and sub-scopes for identifiable male/female (fledgling, immature etc.) characteristics and specific behavioral aspects (nesting, flying etc.). All of these added sub-scope options are fine and in theory, it may be possible to have a dozen VI ratings for a given bird or animal. IMHO when more description beyond these guidelines is allowed, the scope becomes too narrow and overly wordy. I have no problem with this extra information on chest and back feathers being presented as a reason to support the VI nomination (one on the non-mandatory fields in the nomination) for identification of this bird as representing a specific species or sub-species scope. --GRDN711 (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC) Scores: 1. Commons:Valued image candidates/Icterus prosthemelas.jpg: -3 (current VI within same scope) 2. Commons:Valued image candidates/Black-cowled oriole (Icterus prosthemelas prosthemelas) Orange Walk.jpg: +3, -1 <-- => File:Icterus prosthemelas.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former File:Black-cowled oriole (Icterus prosthemelas prosthemelas) Orange Walk.jpg: Promoted <-- --Milseburg (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Violet patched skipper

View opposition Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2019-06-16 19:29 (UTC) Scope: Monca crispinus (Violet-patched skipper) underside  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 06:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)  Oppose leg and 1 antenna being out of focus is distracting. Lorax (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)  Oppose Not as good as the alternative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC) Scores: 1. Commons:Valued image candidates/Violet-patched skipper (Monca crispinus).jpg: -2 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Commons:Valued image candidates/Violet patched skipper (Monca crispinus) Honduras.jpg: +2 => File:Violet-patched skipper (Monca crispinus).jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Violet patched skipper (Monca crispinus) Honduras.jpg: Promoted. --Milseburg (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-04-23 14:48 (UTC) Scope: Monca crispinus (Violet-patched skipper) underside  Support better lighting and better control of depth of field than alternative Lorax (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)  Support per Lorax. More details are visible at review size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC) Scores: 1. Commons:Valued image candidates/Violet-patched skipper (Monca crispinus).jpg: -2 (current VI within same scope) 2. Commons:Valued image candidates/Violet patched skipper (Monca crispinus) Honduras.jpg: +2 <-- => File:Violet-patched skipper (Monca crispinus).jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. File:Violet patched skipper (Monca crispinus) Honduras.jpg: Promoted. <-- --Milseburg (talk) 16:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Highland rubyspot

View opposition Nominated by: Lycaon (talk) on 2009-09-18 05:43 (UTC) Scope: Hetaerina cruentata, male  Support All criteria for a VI --Cesco77 (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)  Support - Only image of high quality displaying the Hetaerina cruentata. Tiptoety talk 21:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Result: 2 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Yann (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)  Oppose Much less detailed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC) Scores: 1. Commons:Valued image candidates/Hetaerina cruentata.jpg: -1 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Commons:Valued image candidates/Highland rubyspot (Hetaerina cruentata) male.jpg: +2 => File:Hetaerina cruentata.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Highland rubyspot (Hetaerina cruentata) male.jpg: Promoted. --Milseburg (talk) 16:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-05-11 15:22 (UTC) Scope: Hetaerina cruentata (Highland rubyspot) male  Support Much more detailed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)  Support Better lighting makes it easier to see details. Lorax (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC) Scores: 1. Commons:Valued image candidates/Hetaerina cruentata.jpg: -1 (current VI within same scope) 2. Commons:Valued image candidates/Highland rubyspot (Hetaerina cruentata) male.jpg: +2 <-- => File:Hetaerina cruentata.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. File:Highland rubyspot (Hetaerina cruentata) male.jpg: Promoted. <-- --Milseburg (talk) 16:12, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Anthony Albanese

View opposition Nominated by: 99of9 (talk) on 2011-09-07 03:50 (UTC) Scope: Anthony Albanese Used in: w:Anthony Albanese Reason: There was only one other Commons pic of this Australian MP. In that one he wasn't dressed as a politician would usually dress. -- 99of9 (talk)  Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 16:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)  Oppose Poor lightening. --A1Cafel (talk) 07:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)  Oppose per A1Cafel. The now-PM also looks very different to what he was 12 years ago. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)  Comment I don't think the fact that he looks different now is relevant to which photo is best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC) Scores: 1. Commons:Valued image candidates/Anthony Albanese.jpg: -2 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Commons:Valued image candidates/Anthony Albanese Portrait 2022.jpg: +2 => File:Anthony Albanese.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Anthony Albanese Portrait 2022.jpg: Promoted. --Milseburg (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: A1Cafel (talk) on 2023-06-12 07:27 (UTC) Scope: Portrait of Anthony Albanese  Support BIS. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:45, 13 June 2023 (UTC)  Support BIS, professionally taken high quality portrait, useful and used. --LexKurochkin (talk) 22:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC) Scores: 1. Commons:Valued image candidates/Anthony Albanese.jpg: -2 (current VI within same scope) 2. Commons:Valued image candidates/Anthony Albanese Portrait 2022.jpg: +2 <-- => File:Anthony Albanese.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. File:Anthony Albanese Portrait 2022.jpg: Promoted. <-- --Milseburg (talk) 11:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Russet-naped wood-rail

View opposition Nominated by: Lycaon (talk) on 2009-09-07 07:49 (UTC) Scope: Aramides cajanea (Grey-necked Wood-rail) Used in: en:Grey-necked Wood-rail, es:Aramides cajanea, pt:Saracura-três-potes  Support Fulfills all requirements IMO. -- JovanCormac 16:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Lycaon (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)  Oppose Clearly inferior to the alternative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)  Comment Looks like there is a problem with the scope. --LexKurochkin (talk) 09:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC) Scores: 1. Commons:Valued image candidates/Aramides cajanea plumbeicollis.jpg: -1 (current VI within problematic scope) <-- 2. Commons:Valued image candidates/Russet-naped wood-rail (Aramides albiventris albiventris) Cayo.jpg: +2 => File:Aramides cajanea plumbeicollis.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Russet-naped wood-rail (Aramides albiventris albiventris) Cayo.jpg: Promoted. --Milseburg (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-06-15 09:59 (UTC) Scope: Aramides albiventris (Russet-naped wood-rail)  Support The difference between this and the other photo is night and day! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)  Question The scope is different. Is it possible to compare the images with the same scope? --LexKurochkin (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)  Comment You're right. I didn't read the scopes carefully enough. I will await a reply from Charlesjsharp before deciding whether I need to cross out my votes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC) @Ikan Kekek and LexKurochkin: Sorry, I hadn't noticed that the other image was misidentified when put up for VI for a different species. But it shows as a VI of Aramides albiventris so I think the best solution is to deselect as VI as I had proposed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)  Support I think it is an obvious mistake and deselecting the other image from VI would be acceptable solution. By the way, are there any procedure to edit VI scope in case of error? LexKurochkin (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Scores: 1. Commons:Valued image candidates/Aramides cajanea plumbeicollis.jpg: -1 (current VI within problematic scope) 2. Commons:Valued image candidates/Russet-naped wood-rail (Aramides albiventris albiventris) Cayo.jpg: +2 <-- => File:Aramides cajanea plumbeicollis.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. File:Russet-naped wood-rail (Aramides albiventris albiventris) Cayo.jpg: Promoted. <-- --Milseburg (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Common ringed plover

View opposition Nominated by: Ken Billington (talk) on 2010-12-25 21:48 (UTC) Scope: Charadrius hiaticula Ringed Plover Reason: There are no high-resolution images on the main Wikipedia page -- Ken Billington (talk)  Oppose 1) Look at the change in the syntax of scope. 2) File: Ringed Plover (Charadrius hiaticula) (11). JPG is better because I can see a leg.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)  Done thanks for the suggestion, image has been changed to the one showing a leg. --Ken Billington (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)  Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 20:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)  Oppose Much less sharp than the alternative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC) Scores: 1. Commons:Valued image candidates/Ringed Plover (Charadrius hiaticula) (11).jpg: -1 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Commons:Valued image candidates/Common ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula) Oppdal.jpg: +1 => File:Ringed Plover (Charadrius hiaticula) (11).jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Common ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula) Oppdal.jpg: Promoted. --Milseburg (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-07-16 21:15 (UTC) Scope: Charadrius hiaticula (Common ringed plover)  Support Much sharper than the alternative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC) Scores: 1. Commons:Valued image candidates/Ringed Plover (Charadrius hiaticula) (11).jpg: -1 (current VI within same scope) 2. Commons:Valued image candidates/Common ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula) Oppdal.jpg: +1 <-- => File:Ringed Plover (Charadrius hiaticula) (11).jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. File:Common ringed plover (Charadrius hiaticula) Oppdal.jpg: Promoted. <-- --Milseburg (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Maison de la Tourelle, Le Mans

View opposition Nominated by: Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2023-06-28 18:54 (UTC) Scope: Maison de la Tourelle, Le Mans  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)  Oppose This is better IMO, a bit more shadow but no distracting car and the right side of the house is visible. --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 1 oppose => undecided. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)  Oppose As explained above. --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2023 (UTC)  Oppose Fewer details are readily seen in this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC) Scores: 1. Commons:Valued image candidates/Le Mans Maison de la Tourelle R01.jpg: -2 <-- 2. Commons:Valued image candidates/Le Mans - Maison de la Tourelle 01.jpg: +2 => File:Le Mans Maison de la Tourelle R01.jpg: Declined <-- File:Le Mans - Maison de la Tourelle 01.jpg: Promoted. --Milseburg (talk) 12:53, 25 November 2023 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2023-07-08 21:12 (UTC) Scope: Maison de la Tourelle, Le Mans  Support Better, because no distracting car and the right side of the building is visible. --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)  Support More details are readily seen at review size in this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC) Scores: 1. Commons:Valued image candidates/Le Mans Maison de la Tourelle R01.jpg: -2 2. Commons:Valued image candidates/Le Mans - Maison de la Tourelle 01.jpg: +2 <-- => File:Le Mans Maison de la Tourelle R01.jpg: Declined File:Le Mans - Maison de la Tourelle 01.jpg: Promoted <-- --Milseburg (talk) 12:54, 25 November 2023 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Glassy-winged skipper

View opposition Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2019-06-09 11:25 (UTC) Scope: Xenophanes tryxus (Glassy-winged skipper) dorsal  Support Useful --A-wiki-guest-user (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)  Oppose Wings damaged and white flower is a bit disturbing. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC) Scores: 1. Commons:Valued image candidates/Glassy-winged skipper (Xenophanes tryxus).jpg: -1 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Commons:Valued image candidates/Glassy-winged skipper (Xenophanes tryxus) Cundinamarca.jpg: +1 => File:Glassy-winged skipper (Xenophanes tryxus).jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Glassy-winged skipper (Xenophanes tryxus) Cundinamarca.jpg: Promoted. --Milseburg (talk) 13:02, 25 November 2023 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-10-24 10:36 (UTC) Scope: Xenophanes tryxus (Glassy-winged skipper) dorsal  Support Best in scope. Wings aren't damaged here. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC) Scores: 1. Commons:Valued image candidates/Glassy-winged skipper (Xenophanes tryxus).jpg: -1 (current VI within same scope) 2. Commons:Valued image candidates/Glassy-winged skipper (Xenophanes tryxus) Cundinamarca.jpg: +1 <-- => File:Glassy-winged skipper (Xenophanes tryxus).jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. File:Glassy-winged skipper (Xenophanes tryxus) Cundinamarca.jpg: Promoted. <-- --Milseburg (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)