Commons:Valued image candidates/Bambusicola thoracicus Wuhan.jpg

Bambusicola thoracicus Wuhan.jpg

**promoted**
Image
Nominated by	--Interaccoonale (Talk) on 2022-08-06 14:29 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Bambusicola thoracicus (Chinese Bamboo Partridge)
Used in	Global usage
Reason	Best of all, I think. -- --Interaccoonale (Talk)
Review (criteria)	Comment Welcome to VIC, Interaccoonale! This is a good nomination, but first of all, a photo can't have the status of "supported" with no votes, and the nominator cannot vote at VIC. Second, please make sure the word "Category" in the scope is not visible except in edit mode; please look at any other nomination on this page to see how it's done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] @Ikan Kekek: : thanks for your advice, already fixed.--Interaccoonale (Talk) 23:00, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] Comment Welcome to VIC! The scope is not properly formatted the binomial name should be in italics followed by the english common name in parenthesis; I corrected it. But... we must add a geocoding in caption. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] @Archaeodontosaurus: :Already added. Thanks for your help and advice.--Interaccoonale (Talk) 05:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:27, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] Question Why isn't File:Bambusicola thoracicus by OpenCage.jpg best at review size? The bird is much smaller when the nominated photo is used as a thumbnail in articles, which is the point of VIs. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] This image is relatively low-resolution. The birds it photographed were in a zoo. I think it's important to show wildlife in its natural state. And the nominated photo is more large even after crop.--Interaccoonale (Talk) 16:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] The file size is not relevant to COM:VIC, which is only about judging which photo is most useful as a thumbnail in articles. My point is that regardless of the other file being smaller, the bird is larger in it as a thumbnail. Also, I feel like the scope for this is just the scope of the bird, and that's really the only visually recognizable scope that can be used. Maybe User:Charlesjsharp would have an opinion about this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] So, how about uploading a cropped version and nominating it? --Interaccoonale (Talk) 03:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] Comment I'm not the nominator. Besides, I'm getting ready to go to sleep and travel tomorrow. It sounds like maybe I should oppose, but I'll wait to see if Charles has any thoughts. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] Sorry, I can not understand you completely, but I am the nominator. I mean, if you will change your mind if I upload a cropped version and nominate it. --Interaccoonale (Talk) 10:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] Comment added after image promoted: Ikan Kekek Interaccoonale. I would have supported this nomination. The image shows the animal better though cropping would have been better. In general, I dislike zoo animals as we cannot be sure where the animals came from (eg subspecies) and the geocodong is worthless. Side view images of animals are best taken at eye-level: File:Bambusicola thoracicus by OpenCage.jpg is not. Charlesjsharp (talk) 06:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply] `Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2022 (UTC)`[reply]