Commons:Valued image candidates/Northern golden orb weaver (Nephila pilipes).jpg

Northern golden orb weaver (Nephila pilipes).jpg

**undecided**
Image
Nominated by	Charles (talk) on 2016-04-30 20:21 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Nephila pilipes (Northern golden orb weaver) female, ventral
Used in	Global usage
Review (criteria)	Comment There already has promoted image. Should know the sex of the animal. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] Done sex added. I can't find another promoted image. Charles (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment This one :File:Nephila pilipes, Raisen district, MP, India.jpg --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment Thanks. I hadn't seen this as it's a set. Unfortunately, it's not correctly identified, not Nephila pilipes. How do we deselect VI? This is not MVR. Charles (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] MVR would be technically easier. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] Oppose IMO, the opposing candidate is Commons:Valued image candidates/Nephila pilipes, which is better as it shows both side of the animal. File:Nephila pilipes, Raisen district, MP, India.jpg also shows the legs better. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment @Yann: . As I said above, the (existing VI) image that you prefer is not correctly identified. It is not Nephila pilipes. Charles (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment The question is more difficult than I thought. Our specialist says that we can not determine the question saw the two images that I gave him. It is possible that this is the same species with a subadult. the epigynous are not visible in the photographs. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] Comment You could change existing VI to reflect this opinion, though I am surprised by it, looking at the markings. I can't see how they would change. Also, as there were a number of similar specimens being photographed, perhaps it is unlikely that they were all sub-adults? An aberration of some sort is possible I suppose if there isn't a known sub-species that fits the images. Charles (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] Personally I abandoned spider photographs. The recognitions are very difficult, and often requires use of dissection to have certainty for the subspecies.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] Oppose Per Yann --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] Scores: 1. Nephila pilipes, Raisen district, MP, India.jpg: 0 2. Northern golden orb weaver (Nephila pilipes).jpg: -2 <-- => File:Nephila pilipes, Raisen district, MP, India.jpg: Undecided. File:Northern golden orb weaver (Nephila pilipes).jpg: Undecided. <-- --DeFacto (talk). 06:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]