Commons:Valued image candidates/CygnusOlorJuvenile.jpg/Archive of previous reviews

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
@Archaeodontosaurus Tried my best. Let me know if it still needs tweaking. WildMouse76 (talk) 10:56, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment This is a good image but the second part of attaining a VI rating is being the best, and therefore most valuable, image within a defined scope.
Per COM:VICR (1), a Valued Image is "the most valuable illustration of all images on Commons which fall within the scope of the nomination". Further, per COMVICR (2), a "scope is not a simple description of the image. Rather, it defines a generic field or category within which the image is the most valuable example. The scope must be broad enough to be realistically useful to somebody who wishes to search the VI repository". This also means that the scope must be a sufficiently generic subject field (not too wide or narrow), also allows another photographer with a similar image, to challenge an existing VI-rated image within that generic scope in MVR.
For an acceptable scope, start with the direction found in COM:VIS section on Animals (also applies to birds) of one VI scope per species. Ok, if the image is identified as a distinct sub-species, good on that too. And then there are the sex and general age differences that may affect species appearance - male, female, LGBQ (?), pairs, flocks, adult (assumed if not specified), juvenile, cygnet, hatchling, egg - fine there as well. And let's not forget the various behavioral characteristics of the species - flying, swimming, procreating, resting with eyes closed etc. - fine there too.
Location is only relevant if it affects the visual appearance of the swan in the image. If such a distinction exists, the bird is usually defined as a sub-species as there is always a lively debate in avian circles about the definitions of bird taxonomy.
All species, including humans, change appearance with age but by date/time stamp goes too far as part of a generic scope. I accept the general chronological avian benchmarks of egg, hatchling, cygnet, juvenile and adult.
By my rough count, there are about 50 possible and valid possible VI scopes. IMHO, find one of them that works within the COM:VIS framework.
Be aware that even if you do find a suitable scope for this image, there may be others that may be just as good (there are about 200 images of swimming juvenile mute swans). There also needs to be an appropriate scope-link category identified. This is the VI nomination challenge. --GRDN711 (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GRDN711 Then what scope do YOU think best fits this image, since you think my suggested scope isn't good enough? WildMouse76 (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The choice of image and scope definition falls to the nominator, @WildMouse76. If I had an easy answer I would have suggested it. The most obvious that comes to mind is Cygnus olor (mute swan) - swimming juvenile, wtih appropriate scope-link. However, with about 200 images of swimming juveniles to review to see if yours would be considered the most valuable, the result remains uncertain. --GRDN711 (talk) 04:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GRDN711 What if the scope was changed to Cygnus olor (mute swan) swimming (juvenile) - right side? Would that be better? WildMouse76 (talk) 05:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment WildMouse76 - IMHO, there is nothing in the species description of Cygnus olor that indicates that one side of a mute swan is visually distinct from the other. IMHO "right side" is not an acceptable 3rd sub-scope for this nomination as it just adds extra description that unnecessarily narrows the scope. There are cases (vehicles, ships, cars, motorcycles, buildings, even wing configurations on butterflies and moths), where viewpoint is relevant but IMO not here.
You should note that there are some subjects (seagulls, squirrels, swans, dogs, cats etc. come to mind) that are quite common and thousands of images are taken annually, with many uploaded. A good image may be QI but finding a "just right" scope in VI where it is the best and most valuable, can be a challenge. I will review your nomination again once the final scope is set.
@GRDN711 How about this one? (Birds swimming facing right - Cygnus olor (mute swan; juvenile)? -- WildMouse76 (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Pinging @Archaeodontosaurus and GRDN711: the users involved in the previous nomination.

 Comment @WildMouse76: - When I search Commons on "Commons:Valued image candidates/CygnusOlorJuvenile.jpg/Archive of previous reviews", I see 1 support vote; 1 oppose with a decision of undecided on your last VI nomination of this image.
As there is no existing VI, IMHO I suggest you remove your image as an MVR and enter your image as a renomination with the changed scope of "Cygnus olor (mute swan) (juvenile swimming)" with appropriate scope-link. Clearly state in the reason line the change you are making for this renomination. --GRDN711 (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GRDN711: I'm only doing the MVR because of the other image, which I think might be more valuable. I will clearly state that this is a renomination. I tried to follow the MVR rules and renomination. Let me know which image you think is better. -- WildMouse76 (talk) 05:11, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @WildMouse76: There is only one VI rating given per scope, and even if your image has a VI rating, it was not intended be forever if a better one comes along. The purpose of Most Valued Review is to allow Commons users to propose an alternate image they consider is better than the existing VI image for "essentially the same scope" (COM:VIC).
Think of MVR as a renewal process for Valued Images (Featured Picture has a similar process). It is not intended for pre-judging candidates and I will not offer an opinion on your image until it is properly nominated. If you feel your image has VI merit, I suggest you renominate it with an appropriate scope plus scope-link category and take your chances. --GRDN711 (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Valued_image_candidates/CygnusOlorJuvenile.jpg/Archive_of_previous_reviews&oldid=880821672"