Oppose Insufficient info in the image page: you should precise in which city/state/country (I guess it's in the US) the library is situated, and categorize the picture accordingly. I'm a bit bothered about the crop (top missing), but I'm not sure it would motivate an oppose on its own. --Eusebius (talk) 13:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's not the right word. The frame of the picture should be higher wrt the subject: here there is "too much road" and "not enough building" (which is the problem). --Eusebius (talk) 15:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much better in my opinion (the white car is a bit distracting but overall it's ok for me). You can either modify the "image" parameter in this nomination (and notify reviewers) or set up an MVR with both pictures. --Eusebius (talk) 08:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this one is better: better lighting / colours, and the whole building is shown. Cars are slightly distracting, but still ok for me. --Eusebius (talk) 15:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think it is the best one (good angle, colours, quality...). Too bad the tail is not entirely shown. I've just geotagged it with the zoo info. --Eusebius (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hum, to be consistent with the first criterion, you should only give your support to one candidate in a single scope. (PS I will review this MVR later). --Eusebius (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeas not yet eligible for VI status. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it cannot at present become a valued image since it currently fails valued image criterion 5 (should be geocoded, but is not). "All images are expected to be geocoded unless it would not be appropriate to do so". I have not reviewed the nomination against all the criteria, but if you are able to fix this issue and would like me to re-evaluate the image please leave me a message on my talk page. --Eusebius (talk) 15:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The picture is interesting because it shows the face well, but the composition and position of the subject are not very interesting. I think we have speech photographs that could do better than this one. I like these ones, for instance: The second one shows the face quite well, and seems unexpectedly representative of the character... --Eusebius (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]