Commons:Closed most valued reviews/2009/06

Sledge hockey

View Nominated by: Jon Harald Søby (talk) on 2009-05-26 14:17 (UTC) Scope: Sledge hockey Used in: no:Kjelkehockey, no:Loyd Remi Johansen Reason: Action-filled illustration of a not-so-well-known sport. -- Jon Harald Søby (talk)  Request Please geo-code. Lycaon (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2009 (UTC)  Done Jon Harald Søby (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2009 (UTC)  Comment It is for sure a very good illustration of Sledge hockey. It is also the most eye-catching one in the category. I am a little bit in doubt though if it is also the best illustration of the scope, as I find File:Stig Tore Svee og Helge Bjørnstad, VM 2009, Ostrava.JPG may be a more informative illustration of the sport, showing more of the setup, albeit it is not as action-filled as the nominated image. I will setup a Most Valued Review to let other users settle that doubt. --Slaunger (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)  Info MVR opened. --Slaunger (talk) 22:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC) MVR Scores: Loyd Remi Johansen, VM Ostrava 2009.JPG: 0 <-- Stig Tore Svee og Helge Bjørnstad, VM 2009, Ostrava.JPG: +1 => File:Loyd Remi Johansen, VM Ostrava 2009.JPG: Declined <-- File:Stig Tore Svee og Helge Bjørnstad, VM 2009, Ostrava.JPG: Promoted Yann (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Slaunger (talk) on 2009-06-03 21:58 (UTC) Scope: Sledge hockey Reason: As an MVR alternative to File:Loyd Remi Johansen, VM Ostrava 2009.JPG -- Slaunger (talk)  Support I agree that this one is better. Yann (talk) 08:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC) MVR Scores: Loyd Remi Johansen, VM Ostrava 2009.JPG: 0 Stig Tore Svee og Helge Bjørnstad, VM 2009, Ostrava.JPG: +1 <-- => File:Loyd Remi Johansen, VM Ostrava 2009.JPG: Declined File:Stig Tore Svee og Helge Bjørnstad, VM 2009, Ostrava.JPG: Promoted <-- Yann (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Tour Eiffel

View opposition Nominated by: Albertus teolog (talk) on 2009-06-05 09:22 (UTC) Scope: Tour Eiffel Used in: pl:Gustave Eiffel, pl:Wieża Eiffla, ast:Torre Eiffel Previous reviews  Oppose Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC) MVR Scores: Paryż wieża 4 mod.jpg: -1 <-- Tour Eiffel Wikimedia Commons.jpg: +1 => File:Paryż wieża 4 mod.jpg: Declined <-- File:Tour Eiffel Wikimedia Commons.jpg: Promoted Yann (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: (Image by Benh) Yann (talk) on 2009-06-03 15:09 (UTC) Scope: Tour Eiffel Used in: en:Eiffel Tower, fr:Tour Eiffel, nl:Eiffeltoren Reason: Simply the best image of the scope. -- (Image by Benh) Yann (talk)  Info - I agree, but needs to move to MVR together with the present VI -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)  Request Excellent image, but it should be geocoded. That should be relatively easy, but perhaps benh should do it for optimal precision? --Slaunger (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)  Done, from exactly where I took it ;) -- Benh (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)  Info And I added a North-Western heading. --Slaunger (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks. I'd like to add, in case some don't know, that this is an exact NW heading, as the feets of the tower exactly match the cardinal direction. Benh (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Well, I, for sure did not know, it just appeared to me that it was approximately NW, but nice to know it is also the exact heading. Thank you for enlightening me. --Slaunger (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)  Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)  Comment This photo is not good. The tower has different proportions (Worm's-eye view). Albertus teolog (talk) 17:51, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Well, this is certainly not a worm's-eye view. Yann (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC) I agree a bit with Albertus teolog, and I guess he refers to File:Paryż wieża 4 mod.jpg which is taken from a farther point. My picture doesn't "change" the proportions. Proportions are of course differents depending on where you look at any object from. It's up to reviewers to decide if the point of view is annoying or not (please oppose if you believe this isn't good, I would). If needed, it's very easy for me to perspective correct (this is actually what I did first, but I didn't like the result). Benh (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC) I certainly would like to see how you can "correct" the perspective of your image, but the quality is so much better than the current VI that it is anyway a better illustration of the scope. Yann (talk) 14:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC) Softwares, such as Hugin, let you easy fix perspective. I'll let you know when I do that ! (but it took me 6 months to answer alvesgapar's request to take that photo so... I hope you're not in a hurry ;) ) Benh (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC) I not opposed to your photos, since I am the author of the alternative images. It was not by to elegant :-) I expressed my reservations only. Albertus teolog (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)  Comment I don't think perspective correction would be a good idea. I think the perspective should fit the point of view of the picture. If the perspective was corrected, then it would give a false impression on the tower's proportions. --Eusebius (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)  Comment - I agree that taking the shot farther away, like in the other image, would result in a better photo. Also agree with Eusebius that an atificial perspective corretion is not a good solution as it would cause a different type of distortion. Until Benh repeats the shot from a better position I guess we will have to live with this one, whose quality is excellent -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)  Question Are there terms of quality, or the value? Albertus teolog (talk) 20:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC) MVR Scores: Paryż wieża 4 mod.jpg: -1 Tour Eiffel Wikimedia Commons.jpg: +1 <-- => File:Paryż wieża 4 mod.jpg: Declined File:Tour Eiffel Wikimedia Commons.jpg: Promoted <-- Yann (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Saris

View Nominated by: Yann (talk) on 2009-05-28 21:35 (UTC) Scope: Saris Reason: Best image of the scope showing the whole dress. -- Yann (talk)  Request It should have some geo-information. Lycaon (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC) I think the geo-information is irrelevant to the subject. It was in a garden, but it could be in a studio. Yann (talk) 09:31, 29 May 2009 (UTC)  Comment Apart from the sky being overexposed, it is probably the best illustration in its category. I will support when above requirement is addressed. Lycaon (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC) I don't think the sky can be corrected, but I don't see what it would add to the scope. A part of the sky can be cropped. Yann (talk) 17:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC) I made another try: File:Sari 2.jpg. Certainly not perfect, but the white sky feel is not there. If you have a better suggestion, I would like to know it. Yann (talk) 10:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC) More photos with a different sari. Which one(s) do you think valuable? Yann (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2009 (UTC) 1 2 3  Comment They are really all fit for a VI, it will be difficult too choose actually (even the original one was, the overexposure of the sky was a minor issue). My bone of contention was the geolocation. Rules saya that there should be information on geolocation. It is always relevant unless a specific reason is given why it is not. E.g. when it is a studio picture, the description should say something like "Geo-location not applicable as the photo was take in the lab, or when it is a privacy issue, just give the town or the country, etc. In this case it concerns a national Asian dress but it looks as if the picture was taken in Europe, so IMO this should be somehow clarified. Lycaon (talk) 06:24, 3 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, all the pictures were taken in Europe, but most importantly, the model specially dressed for the pictures, and posed. I don't know how I should express that. Yann (talk) 09:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)  Comment Concerning geo-location, these images fall within what I would call non-place related shots, and I would not necessarily expect a geolocation for these images. --Slaunger (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2009 (UTC)  Comment Could you please suggest something? Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, sure: this or this. Lycaon (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Done. Sorry, I didn't understand that this should be added in the description. Yann (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Great, thanks. Maybe I was not clear enough. The only thing that rests is to pick the best of the bunch now. File:Sari 2.jpg and File:Blue sari 2.jpg are my favourites. Lycaon (talk) 19:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC) I've created a MVR for these. Yann (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Scores: 1. Sari.jpg: 0 <-- 2. Sari 2.jpg: +1 3. Blue sari 2.jpg: 0 => File:Sari.jpg: Undecided. <-- File:Sari 2.jpg: Promoted. File:Blue sari 2.jpg: Undecided. --Yann (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Yann (talk) on 2009-06-09 19:45 (UTC) Scope: Saris  Support Criteria met and slightly better with the fixed sky. Lycaon (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Scores: 1. Sari.jpg: 0 2. Sari 2.jpg: +1 <-- 3. Blue sari 2.jpg: 0 => File:Sari.jpg: Undecided. File:Sari 2.jpg: Promoted <-- File:Blue sari 2.jpg: Undecided. --Yann (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View Nominated by: Yann (talk) on 2009-06-09 19:46 (UTC) Scope: Saris Scores: 1. Sari.jpg: 0 2. Sari 2.jpg: +1 3. Blue sari 2.jpg: 0 <-- => File:Sari.jpg: Undecided. File:Sari 2.jpg: Promoted. File:Blue sari 2.jpg: Undecided. <-- --Yann (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)