User talk:Wsiegmund/Archive/2013/3

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Sanicula graveolens (Northern Sanicle).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support : best in scope. (I would add "habitus" to the scope.) --JLPC (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment Thank you for the review and comment. I think this image satisfies the criteria for "main scope", i.e., "[t]he main scope should give the reader an overall impression of the plant. Usually, it will show most of the plant (flowers or fruit, stem and leaves when applicable)." Please see Commons:Valued_image_scope#Plants. Perhaps other reviewers will comment. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Godot13 (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Veronica arvensis (Corn Speedwell).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful. unfortunate that there was no scale on the image or size indication in the caption would be perfect. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Comment A scale bar is most applicable to traditional microphotography with little depth of field, I think. I found no discussion of scale bars on Commons. On English Wikipedea, some discussion has occurred but no consensus is apparent, c.f., en:Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Anthomyiidae_sp.jpg, en:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Loligo vulgaris, and en:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Dense mass of anomuran crab Kiwa around deep-sea hydrothermal vent.jpg. Some find scale bars helpful; others find them unappealing and distracting. The latter favor discussing size in the file description. In the third discussion, the subject has considerable depth so that the scale varies. The size of one individual may be misleading, if the individual is exceptional. Voucher specimens permit measurements to be reproduced whereas this is not possible for field photography. Most of the species that I photograph are well-described. My measurements may add little value. I added size information to en:Veronica arvensis.[1] I agree that it is helpful to include size information in the file description, however. Thank you for your review, 15:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
•  Comment I always take a picture with a scale that I put in the median plane of the object. It is easy, then make a dash for inclusion in the final image. The scale should always be very discrete. In the picture you did, the mere fact that the flower is 3mm is sufficient and very helpful.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Godot13 (talk) 03:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Oeneis nevadensis (Great Arctic).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:52, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Godot13 (talk) 15:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Acer circinatum (Vine Maple), fruit.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:45, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Godot13 (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Walter

There was a long-outstanding request at the graphics lab, so I made this from from this and would like your opinion here. By the look of it, you know a great deal about the subject of copyright.

Ideally, if there was a lovely blurb full of big words on the filepage, and some guide to copyright somewhere on commons, then it would be a solution that could be applied to a lot of articles, although, so far, there has only been that one which I've seen at the gfx lab. Penyulap ☏ 00:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Penyulap, the people who work regularly on COM:DR would be more knowledgable than I. My impression is that User:Jameslwoodward is well-informed. I see that he has commented on the image in question. Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter and COM:L contain some information, but perhaps they should be expanded or clarified. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)