Commons:Closed most valued reviews/2012/04

 Comment Very good formulation of the scope and very good candidate. I just wonder what about these tube-like roofs which are characteristic after all?--MrPanyGoff 22:09, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Five days and no other opinions. Let's see the MVR.--MrPanyGoff 12:48, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. King's Cross Western Concourse.jpg: +0
2. Kings Cross Station Platforms, London - Sept 2007.jpg: +2 
=>
File:King's Cross Western Concourse.jpg: Declined.
File:Kings Cross Station Platforms, London - Sept 2007.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 21:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support I think any VI for Kings Cross must show the characteristic tubular roof, and this is the best such. cmadler (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Happy to see trains in a railway station...--Jebulon (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. King's Cross Western Concourse.jpg: +0
2. Kings Cross Station Platforms, London - Sept 2007.jpg: +2 
=>
File:King's Cross Western Concourse.jpg: Declined.
File:Kings Cross Station Platforms, London - Sept 2007.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 21:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment No opinions, no votes, no interest of Sapporo?--MrPanyGoff 19:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Hokkaido Sapporo Odori Park.jpg: +0
2. Odori Park - Sapporo.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Hokkaido Sapporo Odori Park.jpg: Undecided.
File:Odori Park - Sapporo.jpg: Undecided.
--MrPanyGoff 19:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Perhaps we can have a seasonal set: winter (or this one, which might be better), summer, autumn. We are missing only spring! cmadler (talk) 17:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, every season has its own charm but the main reason of this scope is to provide the information of this feature as a strong urban element. Both of the nominated photos give us the perfect idea about the situation. I just couldn't decide which one is better. --MrPanyGoff 07:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Hokkaido Sapporo Odori Park.jpg: +0
2. Odori Park - Sapporo.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Hokkaido Sapporo Odori Park.jpg: Undecided.
File:Odori Park - Sapporo.jpg: Undecided.
--MrPanyGoff 19:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Young Rhesus Macaque.jpg, is a better image. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support Better focus, resolution, and/or depth of field. Better illumination of the iris. Better angle and illumination of the ear. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Agree with Walter. Yann (talk) 06:24, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Macaca mulatta juvenile, Puerto Rico.jpg: +2
2. Young Rhesus Macaque.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Macaca mulatta juvenile, Puerto Rico.jpg: Promoted.
File:Young Rhesus Macaque.jpg: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 18:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Support VI for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:02, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose The macaque itself is not quite in focus. cmadler (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment The image is of lower quality but its juvenile character is clearer. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment That is a good point, cf., File:Macaca_mulatta_3.JPG. I wonder if this one might be better described as an infant? --Walter Siegmund (talk) 04:10, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Macaca mulatta juvenile, Puerto Rico.jpg: +2
2. Young Rhesus Macaque.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Macaca mulatta juvenile, Puerto Rico.jpg: Promoted.
File:Young Rhesus Macaque.jpg: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 18:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment That's how you should attach the scope to the category. This is a good scope, just maybe „(exterior)” should be added. Please, don't nominate all of your photos at once. Wait for a few days.--MrPanyGoff 17:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment File:Khajuraho Devi Jagadambi Temple 2010.jpg is much better. Yann (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Khajuraho India, Devi Jagadambi Temple - Full View.jpg: +0
2. Khajuraho Devi Jagadambi Temple 2010.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Khajuraho India, Devi Jagadambi Temple - Full View.jpg: Declined.
File:Khajuraho Devi Jagadambi Temple 2010.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 18:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support Best for the scope. Yann (talk) 12:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Khajuraho India, Devi Jagadambi Temple - Full View.jpg: +0
2. Khajuraho Devi Jagadambi Temple 2010.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Khajuraho India, Devi Jagadambi Temple - Full View.jpg: Declined.
File:Khajuraho Devi Jagadambi Temple 2010.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 18:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores:

1. Chief Geronimo I.jpg: +0
2. GeronimoRinehart.jpg: +0 
3. Geronimo (Guiyatle), Apache.jpg: +0 
4. Geronimo (Goyathlay), a Chiricahua Apache, full-length, kneeling with rifle, 1887 - NARA - 530880.tif: +0 
5. Geronimo (Goyathlay), a Chiricahua Apache, full-length, kneeling with rifle, 1887 - NARA - 530880.jpg: +3
=>
File:Chief Geronimo I.jpg: Declined.
File:GeronimoRinehart.jpg: Declined.
File:Geronimo (Guiyatle), Apache.jpg: Declined.
File:Geronimo (Goyathlay), a Chiricahua Apache, full-length, kneeling with rifle, 1887 - NARA - 530880.tif: Declined.
File:Geronimo (Goyathlay), a Chiricahua Apache, full-length, kneeling with rifle, 1887 - NARA - 530880.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 20:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores:

1. Chief Geronimo I.jpg: +0
2. GeronimoRinehart.jpg: +0 
3. Geronimo (Guiyatle), Apache.jpg: +0 
4. Geronimo (Goyathlay), a Chiricahua Apache, full-length, kneeling with rifle, 1887 - NARA - 530880.tif: +0 
5. Geronimo (Goyathlay), a Chiricahua Apache, full-length, kneeling with rifle, 1887 - NARA - 530880.jpg: +3
=>
File:Chief Geronimo I.jpg: Declined.
File:GeronimoRinehart.jpg: Declined.
File:Geronimo (Guiyatle), Apache.jpg: Declined.
File:Geronimo (Goyathlay), a Chiricahua Apache, full-length, kneeling with rifle, 1887 - NARA - 530880.tif: Declined.
File:Geronimo (Goyathlay), a Chiricahua Apache, full-length, kneeling with rifle, 1887 - NARA - 530880.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 20:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores:

1. Chief Geronimo I.jpg: +0
2. GeronimoRinehart.jpg: +0 
3. Geronimo (Guiyatle), Apache.jpg: +0 
4. Geronimo (Goyathlay), a Chiricahua Apache, full-length, kneeling with rifle, 1887 - NARA - 530880.tif: +0 
5. Geronimo (Goyathlay), a Chiricahua Apache, full-length, kneeling with rifle, 1887 - NARA - 530880.jpg: +3
=>
File:Chief Geronimo I.jpg: Declined.
File:GeronimoRinehart.jpg: Declined.
File:Geronimo (Guiyatle), Apache.jpg: Declined.
File:Geronimo (Goyathlay), a Chiricahua Apache, full-length, kneeling with rifle, 1887 - NARA - 530880.tif: Declined.
File:Geronimo (Goyathlay), a Chiricahua Apache, full-length, kneeling with rifle, 1887 - NARA - 530880.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 20:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Good try ;) though the VI in this scope should show Geronimo in stately chief presence as shown in the portrait photographs.--MrPanyGoff 16:04, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geronimo was never a "stately chief". He was a war chief who led his people in raids and battles for thirty years (1858-1886, from the age of 30 to 60). In 1886 he was captured by the US Army and was held as a prisoner for the rest of his life. In his last years he was allowed to make appearances (1904 World's Fair, Roosevelt's 1905 inaugural parade, etc.), and that is when the "stately" posed photos were taken. So I think for VI we should show him as the warrior he really was, and not as a stereotypical "en:noble savage". This other image is even better in some regards, since it may have been taken before his imprisonment, and therefore, to the extent it's posed, may reflect self-image rather than the image the US Army wanted to portray, but the technical quality of that one is just not good. cmadler (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support VI for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Yann for JPG --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment The colors should be corrected (that's easy), and the JPEG should be nominated, not the TIFF version. Yann (talk) 06:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough; consider this TIFF nomination withdrawn as incorrect. cmadler (talk) 13:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Info Derivative work, and story of the original image. --Myrabella (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I've got it: here an albumen print, copyrighted by A. Frank Randall, May 16, 1884. --Myrabella (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Chief Geronimo I.jpg: +0
2. GeronimoRinehart.jpg: +0 
3. Geronimo (Guiyatle), Apache.jpg: +0 
4. Geronimo (Goyathlay), a Chiricahua Apache, full-length, kneeling with rifle, 1887 - NARA - 530880.tif: +0 
5. Geronimo (Goyathlay), a Chiricahua Apache, full-length, kneeling with rifle, 1887 - NARA - 530880.jpg: +3
=>
File:Chief Geronimo I.jpg: Declined.
File:GeronimoRinehart.jpg: Declined.
File:Geronimo (Guiyatle), Apache.jpg: Declined.
File:Geronimo (Goyathlay), a Chiricahua Apache, full-length, kneeling with rifle, 1887 - NARA - 530880.tif: Declined.
File:Geronimo (Goyathlay), a Chiricahua Apache, full-length, kneeling with rifle, 1887 - NARA - 530880.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 20:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Support VI for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support Best in scope, portrays him as a warrior chief rather than the stereotype of the "noble savage" shown in the photos from late in his life. cmadler (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Maybe I'm wrong, but Geronimo looks like this in my mind.--Jebulon (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment It is too pity that some sham photograph of Geronimo while was a circus-man will be a VI. It seems that the rifle is a very attractive attribute.--MrPanyGoff 20:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Chief Geronimo I.jpg: +0
2. GeronimoRinehart.jpg: +0 
3. Geronimo (Guiyatle), Apache.jpg: +0 
4. Geronimo (Goyathlay), a Chiricahua Apache, full-length, kneeling with rifle, 1887 - NARA - 530880.tif: +0 
5. Geronimo (Goyathlay), a Chiricahua Apache, full-length, kneeling with rifle, 1887 - NARA - 530880.jpg: +3
=>
File:Chief Geronimo I.jpg: Declined.
File:GeronimoRinehart.jpg: Declined.
File:Geronimo (Guiyatle), Apache.jpg: Declined.
File:Geronimo (Goyathlay), a Chiricahua Apache, full-length, kneeling with rifle, 1887 - NARA - 530880.tif: Declined.
File:Geronimo (Goyathlay), a Chiricahua Apache, full-length, kneeling with rifle, 1887 - NARA - 530880.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 20:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Support VI for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Bobby charlton elgrafico.JPG: +1
2. Bobby Charlton.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Bobby charlton elgrafico.JPG: Promoted.
File:Bobby Charlton.jpg: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 11:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores:

1. Bobby charlton elgrafico.JPG: +1
2. Bobby Charlton.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Bobby charlton elgrafico.JPG: Promoted.
File:Bobby Charlton.jpg: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 11:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Support VI for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Temple of Bhojpur, MP.jpg: +1
2. Bhojpur Mandir.jpg: +0 
3. Temple of Bhojpur.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Temple of Bhojpur, MP.jpg: Promoted.
File:Bhojpur Mandir.jpg: Declined.
File:Temple of Bhojpur.jpg: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 19:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores:

1. Temple of Bhojpur, MP.jpg: +1
2. Bhojpur Mandir.jpg: +0 
3. Temple of Bhojpur.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Temple of Bhojpur, MP.jpg: Promoted.
File:Bhojpur Mandir.jpg: Declined.
File:Temple of Bhojpur.jpg: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 19:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores:

1. Temple of Bhojpur, MP.jpg: +1
2. Bhojpur Mandir.jpg: +0 
3. Temple of Bhojpur.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Temple of Bhojpur, MP.jpg: Promoted.
File:Bhojpur Mandir.jpg: Declined.
File:Temple of Bhojpur.jpg: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 19:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The scope is not well formulated now. It might be Street signs in New York City or better Street signs in Manhattan or Wall Street signs, Manhattan but whichever scope you choose it will be difficult for the reviewers.--MrPanyGoff 12:28, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that. Thanks. --Agamitsudo (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Please link the scope to a relevant category or gallery; if none exists you might need to create it. cmadler (talk) 13:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Sign Brodway crossing Wall Street.JPG: +0
2. Wall Street & Broadway.JPG: +0 
=>
File:Sign Brodway crossing Wall Street.JPG: Undecided.
File:Wall Street & Broadway.JPG: Undecided.
--MrPanyGoff 20:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores:

1. Sign Brodway crossing Wall Street.JPG: +0
2. Wall Street & Broadway.JPG: +0 
=>
File:Sign Brodway crossing Wall Street.JPG: Undecided.
File:Wall Street & Broadway.JPG: Undecided.
--MrPanyGoff 20:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question The image matches the scope, but I am not sure we need subscopes for this person. Beside, it is not geocoded. Yann (talk) 09:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose Overly specific scope. cmadler (talk) 13:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Scope widened and Geocoded. --Yjenith (talk) 16:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the new scope ("Morgan Pressel") is suitable, but I'm still opposed, because I don't think this is the best image. For a view of her face in a normal express, I find File:Morgan Pressel 2009-06-08.jpg (not geocoded) much better. Others that are probably better than this (but also not geocoded) are File:Morgan Pressel - Flickr - Keith Allison.jpg and File:Morgan Pressel - Flickr - Keith Allison (29).jpg. cmadler (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support I support now. I think that an image of the person in action is the best. Others are also not geocoded. Yann (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • VI scope is not "best from among geocoded images", it's both "best" and also "geocoded". cmadler (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment This image is from a professional match not a pro-am, also it is in her formal look. --Yjenith (talk) 06:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Comment If the date (June 8, 2009) is correct, it is not a professional match. cmadler (talk) 14:16, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Morgan Pressel - Flickr - Keith Allison (26).jpg: +0
2. Morgan Pressel 2009-06-08.jpg: +2 
=>
File:Morgan Pressel - Flickr - Keith Allison (26).jpg: Declined.
File:Morgan Pressel 2009-06-08.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 07:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I agree --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support OK. --MrPanyGoff 17:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Morgan Pressel - Flickr - Keith Allison (26).jpg: +0
2. Morgan Pressel 2009-06-08.jpg: +2 
=>
File:Morgan Pressel - Flickr - Keith Allison (26).jpg: Declined.
File:Morgan Pressel 2009-06-08.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 07:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores:

1. GrutaLourdesMdp3.JPG: +0
2. Reliquary of Bernadette Soubirous.jpg: +0 
3. Ebenthal Gurnitz Kirchenstrasse Lourdes-Grotte 14052010 09.jpg: +0 
4. Our Lady of Lourdes grotto, Sacred Heart church.JPG: +0
5. Bernadette, Grotta di Lourdes.JPG: +0 
6. St Malachys Church, Castlewellan, May 2010 (07).JPG: +0 
=>
File:GrutaLourdesMdp3.JPG: Undecided.
File:Reliquary of Bernadette Soubirous.jpg: Undecided.
File:Ebenthal Gurnitz Kirchenstrasse Lourdes-Grotte 14052010 09.jpg: Undecided.
File:Our Lady of Lourdes grotto, Sacred Heart church.JPG: Undecided.
File:Bernadette, Grotta di Lourdes.JPG: Undecided.
File:St Malachys Church, Castlewellan, May 2010 (07).JPG: Undecided.
--MrPanyGoff 06:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores:

1. GrutaLourdesMdp3.JPG: +0
2. Reliquary of Bernadette Soubirous.jpg: +0 
3. Ebenthal Gurnitz Kirchenstrasse Lourdes-Grotte 14052010 09.jpg: +0 
4. Our Lady of Lourdes grotto, Sacred Heart church.JPG: +0
5. Bernadette, Grotta di Lourdes.JPG: +0 
6. St Malachys Church, Castlewellan, May 2010 (07).JPG: +0 
=>
File:GrutaLourdesMdp3.JPG: Undecided.
File:Reliquary of Bernadette Soubirous.jpg: Undecided.
File:Ebenthal Gurnitz Kirchenstrasse Lourdes-Grotte 14052010 09.jpg: Undecided.
File:Our Lady of Lourdes grotto, Sacred Heart church.JPG: Undecided.
File:Bernadette, Grotta di Lourdes.JPG: Undecided.
File:St Malachys Church, Castlewellan, May 2010 (07).JPG: Undecided.
--MrPanyGoff 06:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores:

1. GrutaLourdesMdp3.JPG: +0
2. Reliquary of Bernadette Soubirous.jpg: +0 
3. Ebenthal Gurnitz Kirchenstrasse Lourdes-Grotte 14052010 09.jpg: +0 
4. Our Lady of Lourdes grotto, Sacred Heart church.JPG: +0
5. Bernadette, Grotta di Lourdes.JPG: +0 
6. St Malachys Church, Castlewellan, May 2010 (07).JPG: +0 
=>
File:GrutaLourdesMdp3.JPG: Undecided.
File:Reliquary of Bernadette Soubirous.jpg: Undecided.
File:Ebenthal Gurnitz Kirchenstrasse Lourdes-Grotte 14052010 09.jpg: Undecided.
File:Our Lady of Lourdes grotto, Sacred Heart church.JPG: Undecided.
File:Bernadette, Grotta di Lourdes.JPG: Undecided.
File:St Malachys Church, Castlewellan, May 2010 (07).JPG: Undecided.
--MrPanyGoff 06:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores:

1. GrutaLourdesMdp3.JPG: +0
2. Reliquary of Bernadette Soubirous.jpg: +0 
3. Ebenthal Gurnitz Kirchenstrasse Lourdes-Grotte 14052010 09.jpg: +0 
4. Our Lady of Lourdes grotto, Sacred Heart church.JPG: +0
5. Bernadette, Grotta di Lourdes.JPG: +0 
6. St Malachys Church, Castlewellan, May 2010 (07).JPG: +0 
=>
File:GrutaLourdesMdp3.JPG: Undecided.
File:Reliquary of Bernadette Soubirous.jpg: Undecided.
File:Ebenthal Gurnitz Kirchenstrasse Lourdes-Grotte 14052010 09.jpg: Undecided.
File:Our Lady of Lourdes grotto, Sacred Heart church.JPG: Undecided.
File:Bernadette, Grotta di Lourdes.JPG: Undecided.
File:St Malachys Church, Castlewellan, May 2010 (07).JPG: Undecided.
--MrPanyGoff 06:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores:

1. GrutaLourdesMdp3.JPG: +0
2. Reliquary of Bernadette Soubirous.jpg: +0 
3. Ebenthal Gurnitz Kirchenstrasse Lourdes-Grotte 14052010 09.jpg: +0 
4. Our Lady of Lourdes grotto, Sacred Heart church.JPG: +0
5. Bernadette, Grotta di Lourdes.JPG: +0 
6. St Malachys Church, Castlewellan, May 2010 (07).JPG: +0 
=>
File:GrutaLourdesMdp3.JPG: Undecided.
File:Reliquary of Bernadette Soubirous.jpg: Undecided.
File:Ebenthal Gurnitz Kirchenstrasse Lourdes-Grotte 14052010 09.jpg: Undecided.
File:Our Lady of Lourdes grotto, Sacred Heart church.JPG: Undecided.
File:Bernadette, Grotta di Lourdes.JPG: Undecided.
File:St Malachys Church, Castlewellan, May 2010 (07).JPG: Undecided.
--MrPanyGoff 06:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores:

1. GrutaLourdesMdp3.JPG: +0
2. Reliquary of Bernadette Soubirous.jpg: +0 
3. Ebenthal Gurnitz Kirchenstrasse Lourdes-Grotte 14052010 09.jpg: +0 
4. Our Lady of Lourdes grotto, Sacred Heart church.JPG: +0
5. Bernadette, Grotta di Lourdes.JPG: +0 
6. St Malachys Church, Castlewellan, May 2010 (07).JPG: +0 
=>
File:GrutaLourdesMdp3.JPG: Undecided.
File:Reliquary of Bernadette Soubirous.jpg: Undecided.
File:Ebenthal Gurnitz Kirchenstrasse Lourdes-Grotte 14052010 09.jpg: Undecided.
File:Our Lady of Lourdes grotto, Sacred Heart church.JPG: Undecided.
File:Bernadette, Grotta di Lourdes.JPG: Undecided.
File:St Malachys Church, Castlewellan, May 2010 (07).JPG: Undecided.
--MrPanyGoff 06:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why not this one ? ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the composition is better and the light is better. On the other image as if the sea and the island are on the slope. Also, the nominated photo gives information about the connection, in terms of situation, between the main object and the nearby important Thompson Island as well as the mainland where important buildings and structures are visible.--MrPanyGoff 16:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support VI for me; The picture describes well the island and its environment. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment I don't oppose, but I think that the fact there is another island in the picture could be disturbing and confusing. Confusion is avoided only by annotation.--Jebulon (talk) 09:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • MVR opened, since I'm not sure.--Jebulon (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support COM:VICR #3 is better for this one, I think. The color and lighting are better. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Spectacle Island - Massachusetts.jpg: +2
2. Spectacle Island in Boston Harbor.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Spectacle Island - Massachusetts.jpg: Promoted.
File:Spectacle Island in Boston Harbor.jpg: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 10:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other is not bad, but I prefer this one. It was a good exercise for me in opening a MVR (very complicated...)--Jebulon (talk) 09:44, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support (barely). I'm not really happy with any of our images for this, but I think this is best. cmadler (talk) 12:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Spectacle Island - Massachusetts.jpg: +2
2. Spectacle Island in Boston Harbor.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Spectacle Island - Massachusetts.jpg: Promoted.
File:Spectacle Island in Boston Harbor.jpg: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 10:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment I find this image here as far better. It is somewhat obvious that in general, your main reason for nomination is the low-neck. All your nominations of women are characterized by strong eroticism. This is not that bad but after all, we don't select images for some magazine. ;) --MrPanyGoff 11:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not that reason. This portrait photograph is used in some articles also the actress has revealed her branded smile and looks young and with the award function costume here. --Yjenith (talk) 14:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment It is better to discuss the content, than to speculate about the motivations of nominators and reviewers. The latter is better reserved for COM:AN. Referring to COM:VICR, I think MrPanyGoff is suggesting that this image is not "the most valuable illustration of its kind." --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not geocoded.--Jebulon (talk) 10:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Geocoded now. --Yjenith (talk) 13:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Kate Winslet César 2012.jpg: +0
2. KateWinsletByAndreaRaffin2011.jpg: +2 
=>
File:Kate Winslet César 2012.jpg: Declined.
File:KateWinsletByAndreaRaffin2011.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 20:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one is better, indeed. Geocoded.--Jebulon (talk) 09:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support I also think this one is better. cmadler (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support That's right, I find it the most representative.--MrPanyGoff 19:34, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Kate Winslet César 2012.jpg: +0
2. KateWinsletByAndreaRaffin2011.jpg: +2 
=>
File:Kate Winslet César 2012.jpg: Declined.
File:KateWinsletByAndreaRaffin2011.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 20:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The highest mountain in Troms county and the second highest prominence (primary factor) among Norwegian mountains.

•  Comment Difficult to decide. These would make a nice set. Yann (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe so. In fact, what I have in mind is a similar picture from each season of year. IMO that could be an awesome set! Easier said than done though. The mountain is located about 500 kilometres from me and is generally covered by thick clouds. It requires good luck to have a bright day whenever planning to visit the place. The idea would be difficult but certainly not impossible to accomplish. --Ximonic (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support Tough choice but this one seems better. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support But why choose? This would be a lovely summer/winter set; or amend the scope accordingly. Saffron Blaze (talk) 10:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Done Ok, there is a set now. --Ximonic (talk) 11:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment Well, now you should probably withdraw the nominations in this MVR because we can have either VI or VIS.--MrPanyGoff 11:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Now you should probably withdraw the nominations --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  I withdraw my nomination --Ximonic (talk) 15:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The highest mountain in Troms county and the second highest prominence (primary factor) among Norwegian mountains.

•  Comment Not geocoded. Yann (talk) 12:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Now. --Ximonic (talk) 12:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now you should probably withdraw the nominations --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  I withdraw my nomination --Ximonic (talk) 15:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I was reluctant to provide further comment given I have a horse in this race, but I would not have put the horse in the race in the first place if I did not think it had merit over these other photographs. The image quality of this one is on the low end as is the resolution. The Folly is only a small portion of the overall image and many details are lost as a result. The image is dated and does not reflect recent changes at the site to include the repaired Cotswold stone wall adjacent to the tower. The steel gate is no longer there as well. It was replaced by a kissing gate. Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Broadway Tower - geograph.org.uk - 1572760.jpg: +0
2. Broadway Tower - geograph.org.uk - 234083.jpg: +0
3. Broadway Tower snow 2.jpg: +0 
4. Broadway Tower 2012.jpg: +1
5. Broadway tower edit.jpg: +0
6. Broadway-tower-cotswolds-modf.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Broadway Tower - geograph.org.uk - 1572760.jpg: Declined.
File:Broadway Tower - geograph.org.uk - 234083.jpg: Declined.
File:Broadway Tower snow 2.jpg: Declined.
File:Broadway Tower 2012.jpg: Promoted.
File:Broadway tower edit.jpg: Declined.
File:Broadway-tower-cotswolds-modf.jpg: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 15:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment While this is indeed a great image it is no longer an accurate depiction of the Tower. The Cotswold stone wall and the flag pole are missing. Also I think the file size is so small as to be limit its value. Saffron Blaze (talk) 20:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Broadway Tower - geograph.org.uk - 1572760.jpg: +0
2. Broadway Tower - geograph.org.uk - 234083.jpg: +0
3. Broadway Tower snow 2.jpg: +0 
4. Broadway Tower 2012.jpg: +1
5. Broadway tower edit.jpg: +0
6. Broadway-tower-cotswolds-modf.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Broadway Tower - geograph.org.uk - 1572760.jpg: Declined.
File:Broadway Tower - geograph.org.uk - 234083.jpg: Declined.
File:Broadway Tower snow 2.jpg: Declined.
File:Broadway Tower 2012.jpg: Promoted.
File:Broadway tower edit.jpg: Declined.
File:Broadway-tower-cotswolds-modf.jpg: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 15:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores:

1. Broadway Tower - geograph.org.uk - 1572760.jpg: +0
2. Broadway Tower - geograph.org.uk - 234083.jpg: +0
3. Broadway Tower snow 2.jpg: +0 
4. Broadway Tower 2012.jpg: +1
5. Broadway tower edit.jpg: +0
6. Broadway-tower-cotswolds-modf.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Broadway Tower - geograph.org.uk - 1572760.jpg: Declined.
File:Broadway Tower - geograph.org.uk - 234083.jpg: Declined.
File:Broadway Tower snow 2.jpg: Declined.
File:Broadway Tower 2012.jpg: Promoted.
File:Broadway tower edit.jpg: Declined.
File:Broadway-tower-cotswolds-modf.jpg: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 15:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment Not sure; this is a tough one as we have some truly outstanding photos of this tower, including the 2007 picture of the year. cmadler (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment the 2007 POTY is low res, has odd colours and has been digitally altered. The 2007 POTY fails to show the tower in context. In particular that it sits high on the Cotswold escarpment. Of the others they either have perspective distorsion issues or are of really low resolution. The only one close in quality and context to this one is the current VI. Unfortunatly it is very low res and does have mild perspective distortion. Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment There isn't current VI in this scope. The mentioned photograph is VI in the scope Folly (architecture). Anyway, it is very difficult indeed to choose the best in this scope.--MrPanyGoff 21:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment I'm going to pick out the several best images and make it an MVR. cmadler (talk) 19:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • MVR is open. I would also like to include the 2007 POTY and the Folly (architecture) VI, since they have previously be considered to be (for different reasons and in different way) excellent images, but I'm not sure how to do so since each has previously had a VI nom in the scope Folly (architecture). Thanks, cmadler (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I think it would only be correct to include the 2007 POTY as its failings are what motivated me to go take this shot. Saffron Blaze (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support I consider the scope "Folly (architecture)" is contentious. The scope "Broadway Tower" does not lend itself to confusion. Broadway Tower 2012.jpg seems to me the best. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Info For your information: an image can be considered valued (and thus can be nominated) within more than one scope. This is illustrated on the main Commons:Valued images page. In the example, the same photograph is valued within the scopes The Kaaba and Tawaf.--Myrabella (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Broadway Tower - geograph.org.uk - 1572760.jpg: +0
2. Broadway Tower - geograph.org.uk - 234083.jpg: +0
3. Broadway Tower snow 2.jpg: +0 
4. Broadway Tower 2012.jpg: +1
5. Broadway tower edit.jpg: +0
6. Broadway-tower-cotswolds-modf.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Broadway Tower - geograph.org.uk - 1572760.jpg: Declined.
File:Broadway Tower - geograph.org.uk - 234083.jpg: Declined.
File:Broadway Tower snow 2.jpg: Declined.
File:Broadway Tower 2012.jpg: Promoted.
File:Broadway tower edit.jpg: Declined.
File:Broadway-tower-cotswolds-modf.jpg: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 15:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment As with my other comments I think image is past its due date. It most disappointing elements are the lack of surroundings and the almost cartoon look due to the articfical colours. So while it may still be striking it is not so valuable. Saffron Blaze (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Broadway Tower - geograph.org.uk - 1572760.jpg: +0
2. Broadway Tower - geograph.org.uk - 234083.jpg: +0
3. Broadway Tower snow 2.jpg: +0 
4. Broadway Tower 2012.jpg: +1
5. Broadway tower edit.jpg: +0
6. Broadway-tower-cotswolds-modf.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Broadway Tower - geograph.org.uk - 1572760.jpg: Declined.
File:Broadway Tower - geograph.org.uk - 234083.jpg: Declined.
File:Broadway Tower snow 2.jpg: Declined.
File:Broadway Tower 2012.jpg: Promoted.
File:Broadway tower edit.jpg: Declined.
File:Broadway-tower-cotswolds-modf.jpg: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 15:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

* Oppose I find the image quality quite poor. cmadler (talk) 13:23, 20 April 2012 (UTC) I think you cannot vote, as nominator...--Jebulon (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Broadway Tower - geograph.org.uk - 1572760.jpg: +0
2. Broadway Tower - geograph.org.uk - 234083.jpg: +0
3. Broadway Tower snow 2.jpg: +0 
4. Broadway Tower 2012.jpg: +1
5. Broadway tower edit.jpg: +0
6. Broadway-tower-cotswolds-modf.jpg: +0 
=>
File:Broadway Tower - geograph.org.uk - 1572760.jpg: Declined.
File:Broadway Tower - geograph.org.uk - 234083.jpg: Declined.
File:Broadway Tower snow 2.jpg: Declined.
File:Broadway Tower 2012.jpg: Promoted.
File:Broadway tower edit.jpg: Declined.
File:Broadway-tower-cotswolds-modf.jpg: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 15:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]