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]
I just notices this comment Ikan Kekek. The guidelines say "The image must look good on-screen at the review size" but they don't say that is the moist important criteria or that is what matters. Looking good at review size is a qualifying criteria, that's all. I've no issue with the oppose, just the reason. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since the entire purpose of VIC is to select images that look best in online articles, it's obvious that we are not choosing them primarily with regard to factors that are relevant to QIC and not to their appearance in online articles. See Commons:Valued image value: "To become a valued image (VI) or a valued image set (VIS) the candidate must be the most valuable illustration of all images on Commons which fall within the scope of the nomination. Value is judged on the basis of the candidate's potential for online use within other Wikimedia projects. Usability in printed form is not considered." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn’t this a featured picture though? The quality and detail looks pretty good to me… what is it about the detail that is at issue? just trying to understand the objection. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't understand your question. The other photo has a much larger grasshopper at review size, so more details are more easily visible. Comparing the images at full size is not the point of VIC. These images are judged on the basis of their usefulness as thumbnails in online articles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to labour this point, but that is not quite correct Ikan Kekek. The guidelines state that a VI image 'Is the most valuable illustration of its kind on Wikimedia Commons.' The guidelines state that 'The image must look good on-screen at the review size', but nowhere can I find that "usefulness as thumbnails" is the most important criteria or even a criteria at all. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The entire purpose of VIs is for use online only. I quoted the most relevant language. Do we need to have a discussion about this on the relevant policy page? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:48, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In which case, it's unclear how VIs are different from QIs or FPs. We should probably have a broader policy discussion, but not in this thread. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Sebring12Hrs and also because I find the angle somewhat better for this photo. Neither photo is perfect, but I do think this one is better. (By the way, the status is still "discussed" until the most valuable review has been decided.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
_on_crab_apple_(Malus_sylvestris)_Corfu.jpg)
.jpg)
_on_crab_apple_(Malus_sylvestris)_Corfu.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}