Comment -- I known I cannot vote but I would gladly choose this type of depiction. However the lighting is not good enough, considering it is a studio shot. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The views "entomological" should be routine for insects, if I had another life I think I would have. I confine myself to proposed from time to time as and in my meetings. These pictures should be there reference which does not exclude any of the scenes "in vivo" and a label image value with a reduced scope.
Comment Without doubt, this one beats the other three quality-wise by a good margin. However, both, images of living animals in natural habitat and pictures of prepared specimens, are valuable in their own way. I'm not sure how to put this in subscopes and what the generic scope should refer to. --Quartl (talk) 08:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support In principle, I think that this kind of view, if technically better (it's the case here IMO), must be the reference for an encyclopedical use. As amateur, if I want to know how an insect is really made (anatomy), I'll look for an "entomological" view like this one. That's the reason of my support, but it is only the poor opinion of a non-specialist !!--Jebulon (talk) 10:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know... It just seemed to me that this one was the most suitable for a VI, but I reckon I didn't spend hours parsing the pictures. --Eusebius (talk) 13:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the animal well of course, but from what I've briefly observed (in a zoo, though), it is a pose they might take. --Eusebius (talk) 12:03, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I prefer the other images, with a more "neutral" attitude, but this one also fulfills the criteria (good quality and geocoded). Yann (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I beg to differ. This is a high quality image, but the orchestra is cropped here, which I find disturbing (and the edge of the proscaenium seems too curved). For that scope, I tend to prefer File:Palmyra theater02(js).jpg; I will open a MVR once geocoded. --Myrabella (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The image made by Eusebius is far better, artistically and technically IMO. But I have to support this one for the scope, essentially because of the proscenium. Myrabella, you are terrible, but you really deserves George's barnstar !!--Jebulon (talk) 13:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentFile:1956JaguarD-TypeLongNose.jpg is interesting too: in action (it recalls that this model was a race car); shows its oval "mouth". Can be geocoded: it was taken at the Goodwood Festival of Speed 2009 according to the Flickr source, which is confirmed by the EXIF date. --Myrabella (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:
This image depicts a Jaguar D-Type in action (it recalls that this model was a race car), including its oval "mouth", and the vertical stabiliser behind the driver's head. -- Myrabella (talk)
Comment Of course I saw this one when I proposed the other... I prefer the green, because... it is green ! Furthermore, the green one doesn't need a recall as a car race, it looks so (see the white circle for the race number), and the vertical stabiliser is visible too, as it is behind the driver's head. A full profile view looks better to me, because it shows better the size, but it's unsolvable matter of taste. The blue one could be the best in a scope "Jaguar D-Type in action", maybe, but it suffers of motion blur too hardly to be a good competitor. At the end, its only advantage is :" look : it rolls ". (But the one in Paris rolls too, I saw it and spoke with his happy owner.)--Jebulon (talk) 13:23, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Depicting a running car isn't the only difference. Another one is that this image shows the front of the car, with its central oval hole. You could answer that the slender back is important too :-) --Myrabella (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes I could ! I don't understand why this "central oval hole" is so important. This is only an aeration hole, like in all other cars... ;)--Jebulon (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:
I'm attempting to revive this discussion, as I believe we have a better image of Dilma since this file was given VI status, namely, Dilma Rousseff 2010.jpg. In the other picture, she's facing the camera directly, rather than looking upwards, and is smiling. In addition, here she's wearing a wig, instead of her current hairstyle. This one's inferior, in my opinion. See also: Previous reviews -- Missionary
Info -- This is the present VI, being challenged by the other picture in the MVR. Please add new comments and votes below.
Question Why did you chose "Court pharmacy" as scope, if the ground floor with the Court Pharmacy is cut off? Wouldn't be "Buildings of Hermann Billing, Kaiserstr. 201 in Karlsruhe" or something like that better? --Llez (talk) 12:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The building is known by its name. You may argue that the name should be in German then. The court pharmacy isn't in the ground floor, it's in history. There's no court since 1918. The pharmacist who rents the shop today has just kept the historic name. And the pharmacy does and did extend to the first floor. The low intermediate storey behind the arch windows is the place where the drugs were being made and are stored today.
Oppose Ikar.us himself has expressed some reservations regarding criterion 3. Moreover, I would say that a building is really worth its own scope if it is rather well-known by itself. This one hasn't an article on its own on any Wikipedia, unless I'm wrong (of course it isn't an absolute proof, but a WP article can help to attest the notoriety of a building). This one is simply listed in the de:WP and fr:WP articles about Hermann Billing. As said in a previous review, a set about the different styles of works by Hermann Billing could be interesting. For a single VI, if the scope was "Works of Hermann Billing", the chosen building should be Jugendstil preferably, but also quite notable, shouldn't it? --Myrabella (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Like Image:Karlsruhe Hofapotheke ganz.jpg? I discarded it because the view angle on the facades is so flat that no details can be seen. [2] even managed to have sun on both facades - must have been near midsummer, with the morning sun in the north-east. He still has a shadow on the left and the tree on the right. --Ikar.us (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support OK to me now, all criteria met. Scope OK after reading (which has given opportunity to learn a bit more about Art Nouveau architecture in Karlsruhe). This image shows better that it is an "angle building", with different ornaments and windows on the two facades; in addition, the bottom isn't crop here. It's a detail, but I like the glittering golden lines. Seem part of the original ornementation? --Myrabella (talk) 08:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The rectangular seams were painted green, the ornemants golden, as Billing liked it. (The Baischstraße portal had also golden ornaments all over the facade and a larger-than-life golden nude woman on the gable.) --Ikar.us (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support After considerable thought and close examination, I think this one is best because the resolution and/or focus is better for two distinguishing features, the en:pterostigma and hind tibia, on the two individuals in each image. That is especially true for the pterostigma; less so for the hind tibia.[3]Walter Siegmund(talk)22:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Interesting subject. The suggested photo is very nice and well composed but as if I find this one (1) also well composed and more informative and representative. Let's see what the others would say.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 06:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Request I'd tend to agree and could support it if the description (at least in English) was improved to fulfill criterion 4 (Old town? Not a castle?) --Myrabella (talk) 12:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:
Very good picture of showing her model since she is a model. I think it should be exempt from geocoding because its a staged shot and we dont know where it was taken -- Spongie555 (talk)
I don't think the author is active beacuse he has messages on his talk page from 2009 also he has a warning against him,could have scared him off, so idk if he is still around my guess is that he isn't active. Spongie555 (talk) 05:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In principal, I agree that a good image of a moveable object in an arbitrary location shouldn't be declined because the location is unknown. But we're used to require geocoding even if the location isn't visible at all. --Ikar.us (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I wonder that if all the people here are so sensitive to notability of the scopes then what is this silence? Or maybe there are different rules for different people or topics. In my view this is a very strange idea this person to have its own scope. Both photos can compete only for scope - “European young models”.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is notable in the photo you give as example I think that it is Amitabh Bachchan and that's for sure, imo. The girl presented here is just one of the thousands girls that are favoured today by someone behind the scenes. Tomorow there will be another girl in this screen. It is the face and some other physical parts that are used here. The name of the girl is not important at all and will be forgotten after a year or five unless she become some high-standing person's wife, imo.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 09:36, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is relative, was said in the presenter's promotion. I'd compare him to e.g. Peter Rapp. The local audience in India is hundred times bigger than in Austria, but both are local celebrities. The girl seems the only non-Indian participant in that major Indian TV show. This I regard as a notable oddity. (And about physical parts - Amitabh Bachchan's success is credited to his very masculine voice...) --Ikar.us (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:
Good picture of her modeling. Like in this nomination of her it should be exempt of geocoding beacuse it is in an unknown location. -- Spongie555 (talk)
Comment For a person as for a church, reviewers are supposed to look at the notability. This person has an article on its own in WP in 14 languages; in most cases they are not stubs and they contain references (see the article in French for example). --Myrabella (talk) 06:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I saw that there is an article in WP but this means nothing. Do you know how many articles in WP are with disputable rights to be in the encyclopedia? There are thousands of them. This is a big problem for WP - resolving what is ok and what's not. By the way, when I saw the article about this girl I started consideration to nominate it for deletion in accordance with the rules there.--MrPanyGoff (talk) 09:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]