Commons:Valued image candidates/Roodbruine schijnridderzwam (Lepista flaccida) (d.j.b.) 02.jpg

Roodbruine schijnridderzwam (Lepista flaccida) (d.j.b.) 02.jpg

promoted

Image
Nominated by	Famberhorst (talk) on 2019-11-28 07:06 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: View from above of a grouped habitus of Lepista flaccida
Used in	Global usage
Review (criteria)	Caps, not hats. Your translation error is completely understandable but amusing to a native English speaker. Caps are a type of hat, but not in this case. :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)  Done. Small correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2019 (UTC) You reverted my correction! Mushrooms have caps, not hats. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC) Sorry, completely misunderstood. Error corrected.--Famberhorst (talk) 07:29, 29 November 2019 (UTC) It's also not a proper noun. Corrected. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)  Comment An easy mistake to make; when in Paris I often confuse chapeau and capeau. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2019 (UTC)  Comment - I'm not sure how useful a scope this is. Basically, we're looking at the caps of a cluster of these mushrooms. Wouldn't looking at the cap of a single one be more useful? Anyone else have a thought on this? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)  Comment species is usually in groups close to each other, such as in this photo.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC) Interesting image for the habitus. This species can present itself under this type of grouped habitus; but it is not specific to this species. A possible scope would be View from above of a grouped habitus of Lepista flaccida . --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:35, 30 November 2019 (UTC)  Done. correction Thank you for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 07:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)  Comment - I had forgotten about the term habitus and its relevance. So now, my question is how many varieties of this mushroom exist. Other than your photo, here are a couple of highly constrasting photos in the same scope, but perhaps of different variants of this mushroom: File:Tawny Funnel (Lepista flaccida) (15713334400).jpg, File:Lepista flaccida (Roodbruine schijnridderzwam) at Schaarsbergen - panoramio.jpg (in this Panoramio image, a different variety or just terribly washed-out colors?), and then there's also this photo, which is not entirely in the same scope but also looks like it might be a different variety. The reason my question is relevant is that if there are different varieties, it may pay to have more than one VI in this scope, and therefore, it may be useful to further define the scope. But if not, your file is clearly the best one in the current scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC) *Note: I do not like to judge photos of others. But the colors of the photos you refer to. Do not look like the actual colors.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2019 (UTC)  Comment For the forms it would be necessary to have them in hands. The aspect of this group is particular because it is already old and partly dehydrated hence its color and the dark magenta edges of some individual. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)  Support - Thanks for the discussion, guys. This photo is obviously best in the given scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)