Review
(criteria)
|
 Comment Images 5 and 6 has same angle of view. Choose one. Image 6 is better IMO -- George Chernilevsky talk 11:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Info Excluded 5 --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 11:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] Request Please format the scope according to the guidelines : Commons:Valued image scope#Animals. --Myrabella (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Info Done. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Who did the id of this specimen? I would argue for G. swynnertoni instead of G. morsitans, but it is hard to tell because of the low quality of the images. --Quartl (talk) 20:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- InfoI took the specimen to camping area and after a discussion opinions favored G.morsitans. I can change the scope to Glossinidae TseTse fly, if you are an expert and have doubts. The original scope was TseTse fly indeed. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 22:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose should be identified to species level by an expert (I'm none). --Quartl (talk) 04:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info Please use your vote according to rules. "If several species are impossible to distinguish visually, then the scope should be at a higher taxonomy level." --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 06:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tse tse can be identified visually, see for example [1], but this should be done by an expert in the field. --Quartl (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Identification by an expert in the field is not a criteria. This was excluded since such a criteria would limit nomination of biological specimens to an elite. Excluding others who helped me with to identify, we can assume that identification is done by me. If you disagree with my identification, or you believe identification can not be done from current photos, you have the choice to suggest a higher taxonomic level. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 07:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct identification is a criterion and it is your responsibility to ensure it. If you are not able to do this with enough certainty, you can always ask an expert. I disagree with your id because the abdominal stripes appear broader and more angular than typical for G. morsitans. A correct id up to species level is possible for Glossina flies and, thus, the appropriate scope is species, not genus or a higher taxonomic level. If it is not possible to determine the species from your images, then they fail as a whole criterion 3 (must illustrate its subject well). Finally, the different species of Glossina can carry different kinds of diseases, so we have to be extremely careful here and a wrong id in such a VIS would be, stating the least, very embarrassing for Commons. --Quartl (talk) 10:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose' as not yet eligible for VI status. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it cannot at present become a valued image since it currently fails valued image criterion 6 (is not well categorized at an appropriate level). All the images are categorised in Category:Glossina morsitans. To be checked and confirmed. I have not reviewed the nomination against all the criteria, but if you are able to fix this issue and would like me to re-evaluate the image please leave me a message on my talk page. --Myrabella (talk) 06:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Info Glossina morsitans is an appropriate level. If an expert disputes this, I can move to an upper level, or other species, else it should be here. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 06:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Question As you maintain your scope and ID, I've removed my oppose related to categorization; however if you changed the scope, category and description of each image should be changed too. I've asked further opinions about the species ID. Meanwhile, could you explain the choice of images in the set? Usually, a biological set may depict the same individual, under similar lighting, at the same location, but with the various angles and close-ups that depict the important or distinguishing features of the species. --Myrabella (talk) 07:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]- InfoBefore my trip to Tanzania, I knew I could encounter the TseTse fly. I searched Commons and saw there too few images in the category. So I decided to bring some if I had the chance. TseTse fly is not so widespread, I encountered it just in 3-4 places, where they where abundant. Those who dared to bite me was either so crushed that could not be photographed or just flew away. This specimen was on my camera bag. I bumped it and it was stunned so that I could take a few shots. The car was on move, the road was bumpy so photographing was difficult. I tried to display views from different angles below, side, top and front. I had a few shots displayed here and it started to move again. Another bump and it was damaged and unsuitable to photograph. The specimen is about 6mm length. As with scope I appreciate your efforts to consult an expert. I can change information and categories if an expert sees appropriate. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 08:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 I withdraw my nomination Since the above discussion does not help the purpose of VI. --Nevit Dilmen (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator => closed with status=declined according to Commons:Valued image closure#Closing valued image set candidates. --Myrabella (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
