Comment - We're not supposed to judge VI nominations at full resolution, only at review size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:06, 29 May 2018 (UTC):@Ikan Kekek: ok thank you, I'll remember::@Ikan Kekek: Hello thank you goodbye... Thanks for your sympathy --Picte (talk) 11:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Also, your scope isn't structured correctly. But there's a bigger problem, which is that butterflies of x-geographic region is not a useful scope. Useful scopes are particular species or subspecies, and if they can be distinguished from each other, male or female within those species or subspecies. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentIkan Kekek is right about these different remarks. This is a good picture, the scope could be changed to {{c|Aricia agestis}} female ventral. It would be good to make a more detailed caption. You can inspire yourself, capture butterflies that are in the competition. And above all it takes place and geocoding.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentArchaeodontosaurusIkan Kekek rethis image was sorted by one of the common lepidopterist User:LamBoet who deals with this specialty. But, I'm not an expert, and as I start I probably did not put the right pictures on this page. I have better topics. I proposed it soon - {clin}--Picte (talk) 12:10, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentNew scope !I changed the category. and I created the category Aricia agestis female and completed the information.--Picte (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please look at how scopes are formatted in other nominations. "Category:" should not be visible in your scope. There's also a procedure for changing the scope, but I care less about that (others may care more, and you can see the instructions on your edit screen for the page, as I remember). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Scope changed from Lepidoptera of Vienne to 'Aricia agestis female underside {{{3}}}
Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
Any registered user can review the valued image candidates.
Comments are welcome from everyone, but neither the nominator nor the original image author may vote (that does not exclude voting from users who have edited the image with a view to improving it).
Nominations should be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. Please read those and the page on scope carefully before reviewing. Reviewing here is a serious business, and a reviewer who just breezes by to say "I like it!" is not adding anything of value. You need to spend the time to check the nomination against every one of the six VI criteria, and you also need to carry out searches to satisfy yourself on the "most valuable" criterion.
On the review page the image is presented in the review size. You are welcome to view the image in full resolution by following the image links, but bear in mind that it is the appearance of the image at review size which matters.
Check the candidate carefully against each of the six VI criteria. The criteria are mandatory, and to succeed the candidate has to satisfy all six.
Use the where used field, if provided, to study the current usage of the candidate in Wikimedia projects. If you find usage of interest do add relevant links to the nomination.
Look for other images of the same kind of subject by following the links to relevant categories in the image page, and to any Commons galleries.
If you find another image which is already a VI within essentially the same scope, the candidate and the existing VI should be moved to Most Valued Review (MVR) to determine which one is the more valued.
If you find one or more other images which in your opinion are equally or more valued images within essentially the same scope, you should nominate these images as well and move all the candidates to an MVR.
Once you have made up your mind, edit the review page and add your vote or comment to the review parameter as follows:
You think that the candidate meets all of the six mandatory criteria.
If the nomination fails one of the six criteria, but in a way that can be fixed, you can optionally let the nominator know what needs to be done using the {{VIF}} template.
Your comment goes immediately before the final closing braces "}}" on the page.
How to update the status
Finally, change the status of the nomination if appropriate:
status=nominated When no votes or only neutral votes have been added to the review field (blue image border).
status=supported When there is at least one {{Support}} vote but no {{Oppose}} votes (light green image border).
status=opposed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote but no {{Support}} votes (red image border).
status=discussed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote and one {{Support}} vote (yellow image border).
Remember the criteria: 1. Most valuable 2. Suitable scope 3. Illustrates well 4. Fully described 5. Geocoded 6. Well categorized.
The nominator is allowed to make changes in scope as the review proceeds, for example in response to reviewer votes or comments. Whenever a scope is changed the nominator should post a signed comment at the bottom of the review area using {{VIC-scope-change|old scope|new scope|--~~~~}}, and should also leave a note on the talk page of all existing voters asking them to reconsider their vote. A support vote made before the change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn.
