Commons:Valued image candidates/Xerochrysum subundulatum.jpg

Xerochrysum subundulatum.jpg

declined
Image  
Nominated by 99of9 (talk) on 2010-01-28 06:00 (UTC)
Scope Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Xerochrysum subundulatum (Alpine everlasting)
Used in

Global usage

w:Xerochrysum subundulatum
Reason A species not previously in our database. Shows both a bud and an open flower. -- 99of9 (talk)
Review
(criteria)
 
a whole plant
  •   Comment You want two for the price of one eh? :-) Lucky it was free in the first place. I've had a look through my folder, and uploaded the best. Unfortunately the pretty flowers drew most of my attention! Does this mean I should swap the VIC nom to the one with more plant in it? Or should I have put them both up as a set? --99of9 (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice, thank you for uploading that supplementary photo. It is nice to see the plant in its entirety. For me it would not qualify for VI with the plant species scope though as I think the lightning on the new parts of the plant is too dark as compared to the flower and buds. However, other reviewers may have other opinions about this inwhich case your new photo should also be nominated as a VIC within the same scope such that they could compete against each other in a most valued review. Having the two photos together as a valued image set candidate would not make much meaning for me. As that is not really what the sets are for IMO. --Slaunger (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 
another in-between option
  • Ok, I've nearly caught on. I've found a third one to consider. It's from a different (wider field) shot... see the revision history, which included another plant, but I've cropped it to include mainly the well lit portion of the front plant. --99of9 (talk) 04:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you, I slightly prefer the last version and I find it promotable within the scope, so I have set up a MVR, where i have also added your first alternative in case anyone should prefer that. --Slaunger (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose It is a very good photo of the flower and bud of this interesting species. However, for a plant species scope the nominated image should IMO show the plants more in its entirety. Since we only have these two photos, I could be convinced though to support it with a ", flower and bud" subscope appended, although other reviewers may find that is cornering the intention behind plant subscopes. --Slaunger (talk) 20:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Scores:
1. Xerochrysum: +1
2. Xerochrysum subundulatum plant.jpg: +0
3. Xerochrysum subundulatum plants.jpg: +2
=>
File:Xerochrysum subundulatum.jpg: Declined.
File:Xerochrysum subundulatum plant.jpg: Declined.
File:Xerochrysum subundulatum plants.jpg: Promoted.
--George Chernilevsky talk 09:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]