Oppose It is two very good, high quality photos of Corvus mellori, but for me they do not fulfill the set criterion "...illustrating some scope in such a way that the set, when taken as a whole, is significantly more valuable than a collection of individual images...". I have the feeling that in this nomination you may have mixed up a Most Valued Review with a set nomination? You may instead want to try and nominate one image as a VIC or if you think both of them could be candidates for being best in scope, setup an MVR and let them compete. --Slaunger (talk) 23:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was going by those guidelines, but I obviously have a different idea of what adds values to sets of animals. My dream "valued set of images of a particular animal" would be one to illustrate its adult male physical form, one for the female, one for the juvenile, one to illustrate its eating, one to illustrate its communal habits, one to illustrate its common behaviour, one to illustrate it interacting with its normal environment, and one to illustrate its sleeping. (Admittedly I only have three or four of these). You might say "but that's just a collection of images", but the point is that the collection depicts very different aspects of the animal (even moreso than the insects: front vs side). My ideal valued image set could ALL be put on the same wikipedia page about the animal, and would provide everything wikipedia needed for that species. --99of9 (talk) 09:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm happy to take your advice and just submit the image of the Little Raven's physical form, but I'd still like clarification on sets. Can you describe your ideal valued image set for a single species of animal? --99of9 (talk) 09:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One final thing. It would be nice for sets to have a "Reason for nomination" field, like single image VICs do. --99of9 (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That could be considered as a relevant addition to the template. The image captions may give a hint to the reason, but having a contralised reason field seems relevant as well. I will see what I can do about it. --Slaunger (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
