Commons:Valued image candidates/Costus spectabilis .jpg: Difference between revisions
m oh no! |
comment |
||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
I do not agree with your swift decline and request some other knowledgable person commenting. All structural parts of the plant are shown and nothing has been cropped but by the soil the plant arises from. [[User:Lycaon|Lycaon]] ([[User talk:Lycaon|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC) |
I do not agree with your swift decline and request some other knowledgable person commenting. All structural parts of the plant are shown and nothing has been cropped but by the soil the plant arises from. [[User:Lycaon|Lycaon]] ([[User talk:Lycaon|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
*{{Comment}} As I have mentioned on [[User talk:Lycaon]] I find it problematic that VICs, which [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AValued_image_candidates%2FCostus_spectabilis_.jpg&diff=13665170&oldid=13665143 has been closed] according to [[Commons:Valued image closure|unambiguous procedures]] are [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Costus_spectabilis_.jpg&diff=next&oldid=13665170 reopened] by a nominator, because the nominator disagrees with the outcome of the review. In my opinion, there has been ample of time for other reviewers to voice their opinion on this candidate, and the nominator has been active doing VIC reviews after my latest comment on the review prior to closure and has had a fair chance to add further comments/arguments. |
|||
:It is not that I have anything in particular against hearing the opinions of others, it is the opening up of a fuzzy pathway, where it is legalized to revert a closed candidate, if you do not like the result, and where the line between an open and closed nomination becomes fuzzy. That is a mess, which we should avoid. |
|||
:Secondly, just because an image is declined it does not mean it is "dead" from a VI point of view, as it can be [[Commons:Valued image candidates#Renomination|renominated]] at any time as long as one or more of the concerns raised during the review is addressed, i.e., in this case a slight modification of the scope. |
|||
:In case the disagreement reflects a general distrust in my judgement as a reviewer or VI closer I suggest discussing that at my talk page. In case the dislike of the result represents a disagreement with how current guidelines are written or interpreted, I suggest initiating a discussion about that on [[Commons talk:Valued image candidates]], such that needed improvements can be agreed upon and implemented. |
|||
:In lieu of my general high respect for the nominator as an editor and administrator, I have not reverted the reopening of this candidate, although I really think that would have been justified. -- [[User:Slaunger|Slaunger]] ([[User talk:Slaunger|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC) |
|||
}} |
}} |
Revision as of 21:48, 19 August 2008
Costus spectabilis .jpg
Image | |
---|---|
Nominated by | Lycaon (talk) on 2008-08-09 21:52 (UTC) |
Scope | Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Costus spectabilis |
Used in | es:Costus (género) |
Review (criteria) |
I do not agree with your swift decline and request some other knowledgable person commenting. All structural parts of the plant are shown and nothing has been cropped but by the soil the plant arises from. Lycaon (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
|
How to review an image
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).
Review procedure
- 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 type | You get | When |
---|---|---|
*{{Comment}} My Comment. -- ~~~~ |
|
You have a comment. |
*{{Info}} My information. -- ~~~~ |
|
You have information. |
*{{Neutral}} Reason for neutral vote. -- ~~~~ |
|
You are uncertain or wish to record a neutral vote. |
*{{Oppose}} Reason for opposing vote. -- ~~~~ |
|
You think that the candidate fails one or more of the six mandatory criteria. |
*{{Question}} My question. -- ~~~~ |
|
You have a question. |
*{{Support}} Reason for supporting. -- ~~~~ |
|
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.
- 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.
Changes in scope during the review period
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.