Comment: The page Commons:Valued image value says that "It is perfectly possible to oppose a nomination on the grounds that another Commons image is 'more valuable', even if that image could not itself be a VI candidate (eg because it is not geocoded). In this case this image is potentially better because it depicts a better specimen and shows the natural environment of the plant, but as it is not geocoded, it is not a suitable candidate. I have however identified an approximate geocode for the photo and have contacted the author, asking him to confirm my approximation. Martinvl (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:
I believe that this is a better image than the one proposed for a VI, so I am creating an MVR so that others can compare the two proposals. -- Martinvl (talk)
Oppose We have plenty of images of this species that were taken in a (semi-) natural environment → I'd strongly prefer one of those. --El Grafo (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This image shows the the wide mouth of the animal very clearly. The word "White" is a corruption of the word "wide". The German name "Breitmaulnashorn" retains the name "Broad" ("Breit..."). The vegetation in this picture is typical of the Karoo (a semidessert area) rather than Zululand where it was rescued from extinction. Martinvl (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support After re-reading en:Rhinoceros#Characteristics and en:White_rhinoceros#Description, I've come the the conclusion that out of the current candidates this one shows characteristic features of this species best: two horns, hairy ears, broad mouth, humped back/neck, 3 toes. May not be from the original native range, but the species seems to occur the "in the wild" today, right? --El Grafo (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that this submission depicts the rhinoceros better than any of the other submissions, so I have investigated the habitat more carefully. I have certainly found a number of references to black rhino being found close to Cape Town in the mid-seventeenth century, but not the white rhino. If the white rhino is able to live in this nature reserve without human intervention, then I am open to the suggestion that prior to the Europeans settling in the Cape Province, its natural habitat included this area.
PS, I am not a biologist as such, but many years ago I took part in a four-day escorted hike through the Umfolozi Game Park.
Comment vegetation-wise, this one seems to be the best choice, but you'll have difficulties making out some of the characteristic features of the species. Might be worth re-nominating this with a scope like … in natural habitat? --El Grafo (talk) 11:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The scope "... from the Pont de l'Archevêché" is too narrow - what about images taken a few metres away from the Quai de la Tournelle. I think that an appropriate scope would be "... from the South/South East".
I have found some other images that are competitors to this image:
I suggest therefore that these three images go into a MVR run-off. Does anybopdy want me to organise such an MVR (which will include getting the other two images into a VI-ready state (Geolocation, descriptions etc). Please note that we currently have no VIs of Notre Dame from the South or the South-East
Comment Thanks for your efforts, I would welcome such a competition. I have chosen the scope as it is directly related to a category, but I would support to change it to "from southeast". I would not include views from south, such as the 2nd image you found, and would handle them separately. --Uoaei1 (talk) 07:42, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:
A few weeks ago I organised an MVR run-off between this and a number of other images of Notre Dame (I had no connection with any of the photographers). Nobody bothered to vote. I have now chosen this image that I believe to be the best from the point of view of a VI and am re-submitting it as a VI. I have chosen this image because the trees are bare and therefore hide fewer details of the cathedral. -- Martinvl (talk)
Question@Archaeodontosaurus: I do not see any such statement on Commons:Valued image scope stating that the scope must like to a catagory that contains the image. If you read that page, you will see "You are encouraged to add relevant links in the scope ... Only the most specific part of the scope should be linked". In this case, the most specific part is "Notre-Dame de Paris". The section goes on to specifiy a hierarchy that should be searched. The hierarchy is:
Comment@Archaeodontosaurus: A courtesy to who? If the user knows exactly what he is looking for, he will go straight to the relevant category. If he does not know exactly what he is looking for, then he will look for a picture that contains a VI. As an example, why did this writer choose the picture that she used? I suspect that she went to Category:SI units, pressed the "Good images" icon and selected and chose one of the images that came up.
I agree that the rules say you should put gallery before category, but I also agree that it is much more helpful to link to the category, because the guidance is that every image should be categorised - there is no emphasis put on galleries. I personally do not put my images in the galleries and I'm not sure why we have both categories and galleries. It seems a wasteful and time-consuming duplication. So I have opened a discussion on the talk page. Charles (talk) 11:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Archaeodontosaurus that if you link to a category (as you did) that it should be to one as specific as possible, and not to the most general possible (as you did above). Doing so makes reviewing easier as you don't need to trawl through layers and layers of sub-categories.
Comment: This image appears to have been taken from a point directly opposite the western towers, yet the top of the towers are sloped. Martinvl (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO it is different scope. In the nomination branches, leaves and inflorescences are visible. In value image only two small flowers and leaves are visible. Sorry. --KSK (talk) 08:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Llez: If we read Most valued review we see "There must be at least two candidates competing within essentially the same scope to open an MVR." This does not say that the scopes must be identical.
If we read Valued image scope#Buildings, bullet 4 we see that it is recommended that there be only one VI nomination per building showing its external view. This suggests to me that if the VI rules are to be properly followed, then all images of the Eiffel Tower from whatever direction fall within the same scope.
Using Google Earth, I found that the difference in bearing for the two images was about 1.5 degrees, meaning that both were taken from the South-East. To my way of thinking, this means that both nominations are "essentially the same scope".
Yes, but it depends also on distance and angle. The pictures from Champ de Mars are more comparable and we have there also better competitors. --Llez (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinvl: I don't read bullet 4 that way, as it never says there should only ever be one exterior scope. Quite the contrary in fact, it clearly says additional scopes may appropriate. DeFacto (talk). 12:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:
A few weeks ago I suggested an MVR when a VI image of the EIffel Tower (height 300 metres) from the SE was submitted. In my view that image was distorted because it was taken from ground level from too close to the tower. I have now looked through most images of the Eiffel Tower from the SE and in my view this image, taken from the Tour Montparnasse, probably from a height of 210 metres from a distance of 2.7 km and probably using a 300 mm lens seems to me to be the best image in this scope. The only way that a better image from the SE (less perspective distortion) could be obtained would be from an aircraft (or balloon) using a 50 mm lens from about 500 metres. I tidied up the description and was able to add the coordinates from the category. -- Martinvl (talk)
@Yann: If we read Most valued review we see "There must be at least two candidates competing within essentially the same scope to open an MVR." This does not say that the scopes must be identical.
If we read Valued image scope#Buildings, bullet 4 we see that it is recommended that there be only one VI nomination per building showing its external view. This suggests to me that if the VI rules are to be properly followed, then all images of the Eiffel Tower from whatever direction fall within the same scope.
Using Google Earth, I found that the difference in bearing for the two images was about 1.5 degrees, meaning that both were taken from the South-East. To my way of thinking, this means that both nominations are "essentially the same scope".
I agree with that, and it's not my reason for opposing. For this scope, I would expect an image taken from the ground, which would have a very different background. And this picture is not included in this category. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinvl: I don't read the guidelines that way, as it never says there should only ever be one exterior scope. Quite the contrary in fact, it clearly says additional scopes may appropriate. And I agree with @Yann: that even if from approximately the same direction, a high-level view is not in the same scope as a ground-level view. DeFacto (talk). 12:28, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]