Commons:Closed most valued reviews/2024/05

Anciens bains municipaux de Colmar

View opposition Nominated by: Gzen92 [discuter] on 2018-01-22 12:21 (UTC) Scope: Exterior of anciens bains municipaux (Colmar)  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC) Scores: 1. Musée Unterlinden (Colmar) (2).JPG: 0 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Colmar (Haut-Rhin) - Musée Unterlinden - Anciens bains municipaux (50977884198).jpg: +2 => File:Musée Unterlinden (Colmar) (2).JPG: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:Colmar (Haut-Rhin) - Musée Unterlinden - Anciens bains municipaux (50977884198).jpg: Promoted --Contributers2020Talk to me here! 16:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Gzen92 (talk) on 2023-12-29 07:22 (UTC) Scope: Exterior of anciens bains municipaux (Colmar)  Comment The light on the cable is a bit distracting. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 12:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)  Support The cable is distracing in the current VI too. The people are distracing here, but light and crop are superior. --Milseburg (talk) 18:26, 14 February 2024 (UTC)  Support per @Milseburg: . --Contributers2020Talk to me here! 07:10, 14 April 2024 (UTC) Scores: 1. Musée Unterlinden (Colmar) (2).JPG: 0 (current VI within same scope) 2. Colmar (Haut-Rhin) - Musée Unterlinden - Anciens bains municipaux (50977884198).jpg: +2 <-- => File:Musée Unterlinden (Colmar) (2).JPG: Declined and demoted to VI-former. File:Colmar (Haut-Rhin) - Musée Unterlinden - Anciens bains municipaux (50977884198).jpg: Promoted <-- --Contributers2020Talk to me here! 16:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

African chaffinch taxonomy change

View opposition Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2019-03-31 18:20 (UTC) Scope: Fringilla coelebs africana (African Chaffinch) male  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. --BoothSift 04:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC) Scores: 1. African Chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs africana) Morocco.jpg: 0 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. African Chaffinch (Fringilla spodiogenys) male Morocco.jpg: +1 => File:African Chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs africana) Morocco.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- File:African Chaffinch (Fringilla spodiogenys) male Morocco.jpg: Promoted --Contributers2020Talk to me here! 11:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2024-04-11 10:28 (UTC) Scope: Fringilla spodiogenys (African Chaffinch) male  Question @Charlesjsharp: Both images are looking equal. Is "Pending Most Valued Review Candidates" really the right place? --Milseburg (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2024 (UTC) They are the same image. There has been a taxonomy change since it was promoted and Archaeodontosaurus suggested I do MVR. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)  Support Same image but nomination with different scopes. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC) Scores: 1. African Chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs africana) Morocco.jpg: 0 (current VI within same scope) 2. African Chaffinch (Fringilla spodiogenys) male Morocco.jpg: +1 <-- => File:African Chaffinch (Fringilla coelebs africana) Morocco.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. File:African Chaffinch (Fringilla spodiogenys) male Morocco.jpg: Promoted <-- --Contributers2020Talk to me here! 11:25, 9 May 2024 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View opposition Nominated by: iMahesh (talk) on 2020-12-16 02:34 (UTC) Scope: Mavathuru lake at Kotagiri, Karnataka Used in: Kotagiri  Question This is an Instagram picture. Do we know that it has a Creative Commons Copyleft? If so, how do we know? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC) @Ikan Kekek: It was was written in Instagram post description that Available on Wikimedia commons under CC BY-SA 4.0. The watermarked version was reviewed by User:MB-one for the same license on 8 May 2020, link for original version is available at Other versions.--iMahesh (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2020 (UTC)  Support OK. Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC) Scores: 1. Mavathuru lake nearby Kotagiri, Karnataka - no watermark.jpg: 0 (current VI within a different scope) <-- 2. Mavaturu Kere Lake.jpg: +1 => File:Mavaturu Kere Lake.jpg: Promoted File:Mavathuru lake nearby Kotagiri, Karnataka - no watermark.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <-- --Contributers2020Talk to me here! 15:50, 10 May 2024 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Tagooty (talk) on 2024-04-19 04:34 (UTC) Scope: Mavathoor Kere (lake) near Kanakapura, Karnataka Used in: wikidata:Q124841427 Reason: In 2020, this image was wrongly labelled as being in Kotagiri (Tamil Nadu), it did not have a geotag, and it was promoted to VI based on this incorrect information. The lake is actually in the neighbouring state of Karnataka. The file name and description have been corrected, and geotag added. I am nominating it for the correct scope, to replace the wrong VI scope. --Tagooty (talk) 04:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC) -- Tagooty (talk) The bad appointment must be invalidated. You have to go throughPending Most valued review candidates --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC) Moving to MVR --Tagooty (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)  Support Ok for this correction of scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC) Scores: 1. Mavathuru lake nearby Kotagiri, Karnataka - no watermark.jpg: 0 (current VI within a different scope) 2. Mavaturu Kere Lake.jpg: +1 <-- => File:Mavaturu Kere Lake.jpg: Promoted <-- File:Mavathuru lake nearby Kotagiri, Karnataka - no watermark.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. --Contributers2020Talk to me here! 15:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View Nominated by: Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) on 2021-01-21 17:47 (UTC) Scope: Retrato Vicente Guerrero por Anacleto Escutia en Palacio Nacional (Mexico) (Portrait of Vicente Guerrero by Anacleto Escutia in Palacio Nacional (Mexico)) Previous reviews  Comment Good image, good caption, but the scope is too imprecise (it can be improved) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC) @Archaeodontosaurus:  Done the scope has changed--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk)  Support Ok now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC) Scores: 1. Vicente Guerrero.png: 0 2. Vicente Ramón Guerrero Saldaña.png: 0 (current VI within same scope) <-- => File:Vicente Guerrero.png: Undecided File:Vicente Ramón Guerrero Saldaña.png: Remains a valued image. <-- --Contributers2020Talk to me here! 13:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	subpage=Vicente Guerrero.png	image=Vicente Guerrero.png	date=2023-10-31 21:45 (UTC)	nominator=ErickTErick (talk)	scope=Retrato póstumo del presidente Vicente Guerrero en el Museo Nacional de Historia, Ciudad de México (Posthumous portrait of President Vicente Guerrero in the National Museum of History, Mexico City)	orientation=landscape	usedin=	status=undecided	reason= The version of this image which currently considered the most valuable within its scope is of much lower quality than this newer version. In addition, the name given to the scope is factually wrong about the location of the painting (it is not within Palacio Nacional) and Mexico's Spanish name is misspelled (it's México, not Mexico).	review=  Comment There is already an image promoted in VI: you have to go to Pending Most valued review candidates --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)  Done Started MVR ErickTErick (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC) Scores: 1. Vicente Guerrero.png: 0 <-- 2. Vicente Ramón Guerrero Saldaña.png: 0 (current VI within same scope) => File:Vicente Guerrero.png: Undecided <-- File:Vicente Ramón Guerrero Saldaña.png: Remains a valued image. --Contributers2020Talk to me here! 13:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC) }}

View Nominated by: Ezarateesteban on 2023-11-26 22:02 (UTC) Scope: El Aficionado by Antonio Casanova y Estorach  Comment The original file is the .tiff : File:El Aficionado - Antonio Casanova y Estorach.tiff. Everypeople can create a better processed image from this file. So what are we suposed to do ? --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC) I am doing it according this reccomendation Ezarateesteban 23:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC) Scores: 1. El Aficionado - Antonio Casanova y Estorach.jpg: 0 <-- 2. El Aficionado - Antonio Casanova y Estorach-restored.jpg: 0 => File:El Aficionado - Antonio Casanova y Estorach.jpg: Undecided <-- File:El Aficionado - Antonio Casanova y Estorach-restored.jpg: Undecided --Contributers2020Talk to me here! 14:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View Nominated by: Ezarateesteban on 2023-11-26 22:00 (UTC) Scope: El Aficionado by Antonio Casanova y Estorach  Comment The original file is the .tiff : File:El Aficionado - Antonio Casanova y Estorach.tiff. Everypeople can create a better processed image from this file. So what are we suposed to do ? --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC) Scores: 1. El Aficionado - Antonio Casanova y Estorach.jpg: 0 2. El Aficionado - Antonio Casanova y Estorach-restored.jpg: 0 <-- => File:El Aficionado - Antonio Casanova y Estorach.jpg: Undecided File:El Aficionado - Antonio Casanova y Estorach-restored.jpg: Undecided <-- --Contributers2020Talk to me here! 14:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)