Commons:Closed most valued reviews/2013/03

Closed most valued reviews 2013/03

Lubča Castle, Belarus

View opposition Nominated by: Чаховіч Уладзіслаў (talk) on 2013-02-06 18:45 (UTC) Scope: Lubča Castle Scores: 1. Любча2.jpg: 0 <-- 2. Lubcza.jpg: +1 => File:Любча2.jpg: Declined. <-- File:Lubcza.jpg: Promoted. --Myrabella (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Ikar.us (talk) on 2013-02-07 17:40 (UTC) Scope: Lubča Castle, Belarus Used in: ru:Любчанский замок, be:Любчанскі замак, en:Lubcha Reason: All buildings. And better light. -- Ikar.us (talk)  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC) Scores: 1. Любча2.jpg: 0 2. Lubcza.jpg: +1 <-- => File:Любча2.jpg: Declined. File:Lubcza.jpg: Promoted. <-- --Myrabella (talk) 20:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Chamber of Commerce of Lille, France (exterior)

View promotion Nominated by: Velvet (talk) on 2013-02-12 21:32 (UTC) Scope: Chamber of Commerce of Lille (exterior) Thought this was an institution, but fr: says it's the building. Support the scope, but not the image. MVR. --Ikar.us (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2013 (UTC)  Support Best photographic quality. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)  Support Per Archaeo.--Jebulon (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)  Support like it better. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:25, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Scores: 1. Lille CCI 2.jpg: +3 <-- 2. Lille CCI.jpg: 0 => File:Lille CCI 2.jpg: Promoted. <-- File:Lille CCI.jpg: Declined. --Myrabella (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Ikar.us (talk) on 2013-02-13 01:20 (UTC) Scope: Chamber of Commerce of Lille, France (exterior) Reason: Fewer obstacles. Well placed, for full view of portal. -- Ikar.us (talk) Scores: 1. Lille CCI 2.jpg: +3 2. Lille CCI.jpg: 0 <-- => File:Lille CCI 2.jpg: Promoted. File:Lille CCI.jpg: Declined. <-- --Myrabella (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Helix pomatia (Burgundy snail)

View opposition Nominated by: Eusebius (talk) on 2009-01-28 13:12 (UTC) Scope: Helix pomatia (Burgundy snail)  Support Damn! Can't vote for mine, but this one ticks the relevant boxes. I would still love to know where it was found though... Lycaon (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC) The author could probably add some info about it, but somebody has to ask it in German. --Eusebius (talk) 06:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC) Scores: 1. Helix pomatia (Dourbes).jpg: 0 3. Grapevinesnail 01.jpg: +1 <-- => File:Helix pomatia (Dourbes).jpg: Declined. File:Grapevinesnail 01.jpg: Promoted. <-- --Eusebius (talk) 21:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)  Oppose Definition too low --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)  Oppose Per Archaeo.--Jebulon (talk) 13:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Scores: 1. Grapevinesnail 01.jpg: -2 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Helix pomatia 002.JPG: +1 3. Helix pomatia (Dourbes).jpg: 0 => File:Grapevinesnail 01.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Helix pomatia 002.JPG: Promoted. File:Helix pomatia (Dourbes).jpg: Declined. --Myrabella (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2013-03-08 07:22 (UTC) Scope: Helix pomatia (Burgundy snail)  Support Good quality photographic animal is shown in its environment. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC)  Support Lacks of butter, garlic and parsley, but good anyway. Better than the other one.--Jebulon (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)  Support Now I'm hungry...--Godot13 (talk) 23:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC)  Oppose Very poor lighting: disturbing unnatural flash-light reflections make it seem as if the shell is actually glossy, which it isn't.  B.p. 18:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Scores: 1. Grapevinesnail 01.jpg: -2 (current VI within same scope) 2. Helix pomatia 002.JPG: +1 <-- 3. Helix pomatia (Dourbes).jpg: 0 => File:Grapevinesnail 01.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. File:Helix pomatia 002.JPG: Promoted. <-- File:Helix pomatia (Dourbes).jpg: Declined. --Myrabella (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View opposition Nominated by:  B.p. on 12:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Scope: Helix pomatia (Burgundy snail) Used in: da:Vinbjergsnegl, fr:Helix pomatia, nl:Wijngaardslak  InfoThis was another competitor in natural environment. And with natural light (no flash). B.p. 12:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)  Comment I saw, but the orientation of the shell is not very good, even if the light is more natural. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:52, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Archaeo, is there any reason you didn't select File:Helix pomatia 89a.jpg here which you added at Helix pomatia? JKadavoor Jee 14:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)  Comment The orientation does not convey false information which the flash light in the other image certainly does.  B.p. 18:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)  Comment I'm not convinced by the argumentation just above, and this one "does not illustrate the subject well" enough, imo: I would like to see the Helix better...--Jebulon (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Scores: 1. Grapevinesnail 01.jpg: -2 (current VI within same scope) 2. Helix pomatia 002.JPG: +1 3. Helix pomatia (Dourbes).jpg: 0 <-- => File:Grapevinesnail 01.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. File:Helix pomatia 002.JPG: Promoted. File:Helix pomatia (Dourbes).jpg: Declined. <-- --Myrabella (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Equus ferus caballus, American Saddlebred

View promotion Nominated by: Pitke (talk) on 2013-03-12 12:53 (UTC) Scope: Equus ferus caballus, American Saddlebred Reason: Typical for breed, high quality animal, five-gaited, i.e. has both breed specific gaits, in a correct conformational shot from the side, with correct tack, turnout, and pose for showing for the breed. Geocoded. -- Pitke (talk)  Support VI for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Scores: 1. "Breaking News" during the Five Gaited Stake class (3008085680).jpg: +1 <-- 3. American Saddlebred Shelbyville CF 212.jpg: 0 => File:"Breaking News" during the Five Gaited Stake class (3008085680).jpg: Promoted. <-- File:American Saddlebred Shelbyville CF 212.jpg: Declined. --Myrabella (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Pitke (talk) on 2013-03-12 12:58 (UTC) Scope: Equus ferus caballus, American Saddlebred Used in: nl:American Saddlebred Reason: Typical for breed, high quality animal, five-gaited, i.e. has both breed specific gaits, in a clear shot from the side, with correct tack and turnout for showing for the breed. Performing an ambling gait specific for the breed and an important aspect of the breed. Geocoded. -- Pitke (talk)  Comment the animal on the horse's back looks a bit ridiculous. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC) That my friend is the height of style for Saddle seat riding. --Pitke (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Oops, I'm ignorant. Thank you for the link. It is not alone ... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC) Scores: 1. "Breaking News" during the Five Gaited Stake class (3008085680).jpg: +1 3. American Saddlebred Shelbyville CF 212.jpg: 0 <-- => File:"Breaking News" during the Five Gaited Stake class (3008085680).jpg: Promoted. File:American Saddlebred Shelbyville CF 212.jpg: Declined. <-- --Myrabella (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Amruteshwar temple, exterior

View opposition Nominated by: §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} on 2013-03-11 03:37 (UTC) Scope: Amruteshwar temple, exterior Reason: Best one that gives full view. -- §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C}  Support All criteria met--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:20, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Hey Arch, do you think i should withdraw this nomination? I think i found another better one. File:Amriteshwar temple.jpg. It is placed in a wrong category and hence couldn't find it when i nominated this one. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 19:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC) The problem is that the author is not a member of COMMONS. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:56, 12 March 2013 (UTC) It is not a problem for VI (only for QI). You could set up a "Most Valued Review" with the two images. --Myrabella (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC).  Done MVR open. --Myrabella (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Not a member? I can see seven uploads from him/her. JKadavoor Jee 14:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)  Oppose my own nomination as we have another better one. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:15, 13 March 2013 (UTC) As you are the nominator, you cannot vote. --Myrabella (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Scores: 1. Amruteshwar Temple.JPG: 0 <-- 2. Amriteshwar temple.jpg: 2 => File:Amruteshwar Temple.JPG: Declined. <-- File:Amriteshwar temple.jpg: Promoted. --Myrabella (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Myrabella (talk) on 2013-03-12 22:04 (UTC) Scope: Amruteshwar temple, exterior Reason: As per User:Dharmadhyaksha's suggestion. -- Myrabella (talk)  Support - Thanks Myrabella for opening this review. I support this image than the other one. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 11:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)  Comment as recalled by Biopics, the nominator can not vote. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Please consider that here, Dharmadhyaksha is not the nominator formally—I am. --Myrabella (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC) it's just, I correct. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)  Support this version is better --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Scores: 1. Amruteshwar Temple.JPG: 0 2. Amriteshwar temple.jpg: 2 <-- => File:Amruteshwar Temple.JPG: Declined. File:Amriteshwar temple.jpg: Promoted. <-- --Myrabella (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)