Support Although it is not the best illustration for the Doppler theory, it is very good for showing the interference, the result of the Doppler effect. This proves how difficult category and scope selection can be. --Foroa (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, Doppler= relative speeds (2) - but I will not discuss that here. (speed on the left side = medium speed + object speed, on the right side = medium speed - object speed) --Foroa (talk) 12:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose None of them is good enough to honour the saying: "a picture is worth 1000 thousand word". In bothncases, we must know what Doppler effect is to understand the picture. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It shows that with a moving object, the frequency of whatever the waves (sound, light, ect) are higher in front of the object and lower behind the object. Is the problem that it doesn't show clearly enough that it is a moving object? Pbroks13 (talk) 07:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose None of them is good enough to honour the saying: "a picture is worth 1000 thousand word". In bothncases, we must know what Doppler effect is to understand the picture. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maybe it isn't easy but I'm convinced it is possible to make a less abstract depiction. Like the classic one with a train moving and whistling, and two observers (one in each side) listening to two different frequencies. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - here is a very crude sketch just to explain my idea. Should the "waves" leaving the whistle be symmetrical or not? Well, it depends on the reference frame we consider. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I tend to prefer this one, because I see a part of the roof, and then it gives me more informations about the building. The other one has a better technical quality but shows only the façade.--Jebulon (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Very nice picture. Best technical quality in the scope (and other criteria ok), but the flower itself does not look very good (compared to this one for instance]]. --Eusebius (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that this picture is in competition with yours. I'm just saying that it appears to me that mallow flowers have a pretty specific, regular shape, and that the flower in your picture doesn't show this shape very well. --Eusebius (talk) 06:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think this is the most valued photograph we have of the species, but I do not think it is the best image we have for illustrating the species. For this purpose I find this old scheme is better. I will therefore open an MVR on it. --Slaunger (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It show the acropolis of the city, but none of the larger temples. I guess the right thing for this scope would be a VIS, with every single temple and plaza of the site (but we don't have that). --Eusebius (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not convinced that this is the best of the bunch. At VI review resolution, this one is better, IMO, as the colours seem more life-like because no flash was used. It also shows the spiracles on the tergites a bit better. Lycaon (talk) 11:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is much more detailed at review size. We are supposed to be judging these images in terms of how they would be used in articles, which is as thumbnails. "Inferior in resolution" is not a valid reason to oppose a file that is larger and more detailed at review size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Thumbnail or not, both are excellent, FPs anyway. But here, the contrast between the colours is more attractive. Besides, the grasshopper is looking into the camera, as if he knew what's going on. --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
_on_crab_apple_(Malus_sylvestris)_Corfu.jpg){kind=link}
_on_crab_apple_(Malus_sylvestris)_Corfu.jpg){kind=link}