Commons:Closed most valued reviews/2017/02

• Unique image on Commons of Olive baboon carrying baby on its back -- Charles (talk)

 Support Good choice --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:27, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Baby baboon on back.jpg: 0 (current VI within same scope) <--
2. Olive baboon (Papio anubis) with juvenile.jpg: +2
=>
File:Baby baboon on back.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <--
File:Olive baboon (Papio anubis) with juvenile.jpg: Promoted.
--DeFacto (talk). 21:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Baby baboon on back.jpg Is already promoted. I know the author is a very good photographer!--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This other one is a baby, this one is a much older juvenile, that's why I nominated it, but can go to MVR if everyone agrees. Charles (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment - Is there a way to more clearly differentiate the scopes of the different photos? The other one was promoted in the scope "Papio anubis (Olive baboon) carrying young on its back", which is the same scope as this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• No idea. I would like to change the existing one from young to baby, but don't know how to do that. Charles (talk)

• Can anyone help? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support This is the best for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment - Yes, this is clearly a better photo, but why can't we distinguish the scopes, given that in this case, it's a juvenile on its mother's back, whereas in the other one, it's a baby? I think both photos are clearly useful and distinct in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support Following the guidance in Commons:Valued image scope#Animals, I think that "baby" and "juvenile" are sufficiently similar that it is one or the other and I support this one. Martinvl (talk) 18:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment - My reading of that leads me to the opposite conclusion. Substitute "baby" and "juvenile" in this sentence: "If male and female of the same species can be distinguished from each other from a picture, then a "male" scope and a "female" scope can be proposed for the same species." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question - Does anyone else have an opinion, or will this just remain unchanged? There's agreement that this is the better of the two photos, but there's disagreement about whether to have a distinct scope for an infant vs. a juvenile. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment The MVR rules accepts an MVR for two or more images that have "essentially the same scope", not "exactly ...". This tells me that the appropriate scope for the image which becomes a VI, should be the scope attached to it when it was nominated - in this case, the wording wth the word "juvenile". Martinvl (talk) 14:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for explaining, but I can't agree with you that scopes should be set in stone. That actually strikes me as inflexible for the sake of inflexibility. Suppose someone successfully nominated a photo for best of scope in Category:Chicken, and then another person decided to nominate a rooster and a chick? Should they be stuck not being able to have successful nominees because the original nominee, which was a hen, won in the broader scope of chicken? Why not, in that case, move the first VI to Category:Hen? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:43, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Baby baboon on back.jpg: 0 (current VI within same scope)
2. Olive baboon (Papio anubis) with juvenile.jpg: +2 <--
=>
File:Baby baboon on back.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former.
File:Olive baboon (Papio anubis) with juvenile.jpg: Promoted. <--
--DeFacto (talk). 21:01, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment - Why isn't File:Els Moors 2016 01.jpg better? She's facing a bit away from the camera, but more of her face is in sunlight and she has a nicer expression. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose per above comment. Should the status now be discussed or opposed? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:22, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Els Moors 2016 02.jpg: -1 <--
2. Els Moors 2016 01.jpg: +2 
=>
File:Els Moors 2016 02.jpg: Declined. <--
File:Els Moors 2016 01.jpg: Promoted.
--DeFacto (talk). 18:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment @Ikan Kekek: Per your comment here I nominate this one for MVI. Thanks!
•  Support - Most valuable, in my opinion. As mentioned vis-a-vis the other photo, more of her face is in sunlight in this one and she has a nicer expression. Should the status be "discussed"? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment When there is at least one Support but no Oppose then status can be replace as Support. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 13:26, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support--Tiven2240 (talk) 12:30, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Els Moors 2016 02.jpg: -1
2. Els Moors 2016 01.jpg: +2 <--
=>
File:Els Moors 2016 02.jpg: Declined.
File:Els Moors 2016 01.jpg: Promoted. <--
--DeFacto (talk). 18:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support - Best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
•  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scores:
1. Commons:Valued image candidates/Amsterdam Centraal 2016-09-13.jpg: +2 <--
2. Commons:Valued image candidates/Amsterdam (NL), Centraal Station -- 2015 -- 7269.jpg: -1 (current VI within same scope)
=>
File:Amsterdam Centraal 2016-09-13.jpg: Promoted. <--
File:Amsterdam (NL), Centraal Station -- 2015 -- 7269.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former
 -- Slaunger (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Previous reviews

•  Oppose - Certainly quite good, but not as useful, per Slaunger's argument. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment @Slaunger, Ikan Kekek, Jacek Halicki, and Archaeodontosaurus: Sorry, I can't follow the reviews. The image is already VI. Is there a better one? Why is this image nominated again? And I'm not the nominator in 2017. Which argument by Slaunger? Sorry, there is something really wrong. I do not understand this nomination. --XRay ^talk 07:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @XRay: . I think all is OK, but let me explain on your talk page, such that you better understand. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except for the nominator field, now corrected. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your explanation. The/this page is on my watch list. So I've seen just this one. BTW: Your image is the better one for VI. --XRay ^talk 08:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scores:
1. Commons:Valued image candidates/Amsterdam Centraal 2016-09-13.jpg: +2
2. Commons:Valued image candidates/Amsterdam (NL), Centraal Station -- 2015 -- 7269.jpg: -1 (current VI within same scope) <--
=>
File:Amsterdam Centraal 2016-09-13.jpg: Promoted.
File:Amsterdam (NL), Centraal Station -- 2015 -- 7269.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former <--
 -- Slaunger (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support - Not very sharp, but best in scope by default. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Best in scope. --Yann (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Ted Danson 2008 number 2.jpg: +2
2. Ted Danson.jpg: -1 
=>
File:Ted Danson 2008 number 2.jpg: Promoted.
File:Ted Danson.jpg: Declined.
--Yann (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose - A sharper picture than the other one, but needs to be digitally restored: The white spots are very distracting and disconcerting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Ted Danson 2008 number 2.jpg: +2
2. Ted Danson.jpg: -1 
=>
File:Ted Danson 2008 number 2.jpg: Promoted.
File:Ted Danson.jpg: Declined.
--Yann (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support - Seems like the best photo in scope to me, partly because of the careful light control in the studio. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Best in scope. --Yann (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scores:

1. Cloris Leachman 1970.JPG: +2
2. Cloris Leachman Phyllis 1974.JPG: -1 (current VI within same scope)
=>
File:Cloris Leachman 1970.JPG: Promoted.
File:Cloris Leachman Phyllis 1974.JPG: Declined and demoted to VI-former.
--Yann (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support I think this should be a VI out of the photos in the category for now.--MrPanyGoff 20:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. ClorisLeachmanJune09.jpg: +0
2. Cloris Leachman Phyllis 1974.JPG: +1 
=>
File:ClorisLeachmanJune09.jpg: Declined.
File:Cloris Leachman Phyllis 1974.JPG: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 08:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose - Good alternative, but there are some very bright areas in this photo and she's in shadow. Those really bright flowers can be a distraction. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scores:

1. Cloris Leachman 1970.JPG: +2
2. Cloris Leachman Phyllis 1974.JPG: -1 (current VI within same scope)
=>
File:Cloris Leachman 1970.JPG: Promoted.
File:Cloris Leachman Phyllis 1974.JPG: Declined and demoted to VI-former.
--Yann (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose Sorry, several and serious perspective issues, none vertical line are vertical --Ezarateesteban 23:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment these types of technical issues @Ezarate: are not usually reason to oppose a VI nomination. Charles (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment The perspective issues affect the VIC guideline #3: Must illustrate its subject well. The subject isn't well ilustrated. Thanks for your opinion Charles Ezarateesteban 15:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done Perspective has been set. Wish it will be batter. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 17:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support It was more easy than I think, useful now --Ezarateesteban 22:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose in favor of the alternative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Che Guevara - Grab in Santa Clara, Kuba.jpg: -1 (current VI within same scope) <--
2. Che Guevara Monument 2017.jpg: 0 
=>
File:Che Guevara - Grab in Santa Clara, Kuba.jpg: Undecided continues as current VI. <--
File:Che Guevara Monument 2017.jpg: Undecided.
--DeFacto (talk). 17:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support as best in scope per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment, I think the perspective needs correction, as was done for the other candidate in this MVR. DeFacto (talk). 07:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DeFacto: This is a huge monument, so I think eliminating the effects of perspective completely would look a bit artificial. I've reduced the perspective tilt some, per your suggestion, however. Hopefully it's an improvement. Kaldari (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kaldari: I'd prefer the verticals to be more vertical (as in the other candidate in this MVR) but will wait to see if anyone else has an opinion on this. DeFacto (talk). 07:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Question What is "west-east view"? "view from west"? --Berthold Werner (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kaldari, Moheen, anyone have an answer? It's a good question. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment View from the west corner. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 11:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. Then the scope should be changed to "Che Guevara Mausoleum viewed from the western corner". That would be clear. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose Perspective correction necessary. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Che Guevara - Grab in Santa Clara, Kuba.jpg: -1 (current VI within same scope)
2. Che Guevara Monument 2017.jpg: 0 <--
=>
File:Che Guevara - Grab in Santa Clara, Kuba.jpg: Undecided continues as current VI.
File:Che Guevara Monument 2017.jpg: Undecided. <--
--DeFacto (talk). 18:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Rupert Murdoch - WEF Davos 2007.jpg: +0
2. Murdoch at World Economic Forum 2009.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Rupert Murdoch - WEF Davos 2007.jpg: Declined.
File:Murdoch at World Economic Forum 2009.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 09:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support - In my opinion, this remains a better picture than the other one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Murdoch at World Economic Forum 2009.jpg: +1 (current VI within same scope) <--
2. Rupert Murdoch - Flickr - Eva Rinaldi Celebrity and Live Music Photographer.jpg: -1 
=>
File:Murdoch at World Economic Forum 2009.jpg: Promoted and so continues as current VI. <--
File:Rupert Murdoch - Flickr - Eva Rinaldi Celebrity and Live Music Photographer.jpg: Declined.
--DeFacto (talk). 18:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose - I may be too influenced by the quality of the other photo at full size, but his skin seems a bit bleached in this photo, by comparison. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Murdoch at World Economic Forum 2009.jpg: +1 (current VI within same scope)
2. Rupert Murdoch - Flickr - Eva Rinaldi Celebrity and Live Music Photographer.jpg: -1 <--
=>
File:Murdoch at World Economic Forum 2009.jpg: Promoted and so continues as current VI.
File:Rupert Murdoch - Flickr - Eva Rinaldi Celebrity and Live Music Photographer.jpg: Declined. <--
--DeFacto (talk). 18:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Not geocoded. I think this one is best. cmadler (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Geocoding added. --George Ho (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment I am no longer so sure this is the best; at a small size I think it is, but at larger sizes maybe File:5.3.10NeilPatrickHarrisByDavidShankbone.jpg is better because of his facial expression. cmadler (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. 5.3.10NeilPatrickHarrisByDavidShankbone.jpg: +0
2. Neil Patrick Harris 2008.jpg: +0 
3. NeilPatrickHarrisHWOFSept2011.jpg: +0 
=>
File:5.3.10NeilPatrickHarrisByDavidShankbone.jpg: Undecided.
File:Neil Patrick Harris 2008.jpg: Undecided.
File:NeilPatrickHarrisHWOFSept2011.jpg: Undecided.
--MrPanyGoff 08:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. NeilPatrickHarrisHWOFSept2011.jpg: 0 <--
2. 5.3.10NeilPatrickHarrisByDavidShankbone.jpg: 0
3. Neil Patrick Harris 2011 (cropped).jpg: 0
4. Neil Patrick Harris (9446191273).jpg: 0
=>
File:NeilPatrickHarrisHWOFSept2011.jpg: Undecided. <--
File:5.3.10NeilPatrickHarrisByDavidShankbone.jpg: Undecided.
File:Neil Patrick Harris 2011 (cropped).jpg: Undecided.
File:Neil Patrick Harris (9446191273).jpg: Undecided.
--DeFacto (talk). 20:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Not geocoded. cmadler (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info Geocoding now added. --George Ho (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. 5.3.10NeilPatrickHarrisByDavidShankbone.jpg: +0
2. Neil Patrick Harris 2008.jpg: +0 
3. NeilPatrickHarrisHWOFSept2011.jpg: +0 
=>
File:5.3.10NeilPatrickHarrisByDavidShankbone.jpg: Undecided.
File:Neil Patrick Harris 2008.jpg: Undecided.
File:NeilPatrickHarrisHWOFSept2011.jpg: Undecided.
--MrPanyGoff 08:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. NeilPatrickHarrisHWOFSept2011.jpg: 0
2. 5.3.10NeilPatrickHarrisByDavidShankbone.jpg: 0 <--
3. Neil Patrick Harris 2011 (cropped).jpg: 0
4. Neil Patrick Harris (9446191273).jpg: 0
=>
File:NeilPatrickHarrisHWOFSept2011.jpg: Undecided.
File:5.3.10NeilPatrickHarrisByDavidShankbone.jpg: Undecided. <--
File:Neil Patrick Harris 2011 (cropped).jpg: Undecided.
File:Neil Patrick Harris (9446191273).jpg: Undecided.
--DeFacto (talk). 20:57, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scores:

1. NeilPatrickHarrisHWOFSept2011.jpg: 0
2. 5.3.10NeilPatrickHarrisByDavidShankbone.jpg: 0
3. Neil Patrick Harris 2011 (cropped).jpg: 0 <--
4. Neil Patrick Harris (9446191273).jpg: 0
=>
File:NeilPatrickHarrisHWOFSept2011.jpg: Undecided.
File:5.3.10NeilPatrickHarrisByDavidShankbone.jpg: Undecided.
File:Neil Patrick Harris 2011 (cropped).jpg: Undecided. <--
File:Neil Patrick Harris (9446191273).jpg: Undecided.
--DeFacto (talk). 20:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question - Why are none of these pictures in Category:Neil Patrick Harris, and how are we supposed to figure out which picture is best in scope if we have to wade through a bunch of "Neil Patrick Harris by year" subcategories? It seems like this category has somehow gotten messed up, but I don't know how. It should be unmessed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it, Ikan. --George Ho (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot. Unfortunately, now I feel like there are so many photos, I can't look through all of them and decide which is best in scope. Should I restrict myself to judging just these three photos? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... shall I split three nominations into individually scoped nominations then? I'll split the scope into three yearly scopes. --George Ho (talk) 08:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Pinging Ikan. 08:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tend not to think so. I don't think he will be recognizably different in consecutive years. Someone will probably take the time to look through all of the photos and determine to their satisfaction which is most useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can, Ikan, either limit to just three photos or nominate the fourth photo yourself. There is File:Neil Patrick Harris - Streamy Awards 2009 (2).jpg, but it has too much lighting. --George Ho (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed other pictures, but they do not come close to the three. There are other Comic Con 2013 photos of this guy, but I would rather pick something less silly and more... how do you call it? --George Ho (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can vote more than one photo of the same scope if you can. --George Ho (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: I have an idea. What if I can narrow the scope of this nomination to just "Neil Patrick Harris at the 2013 Comic Con"? Would this work? --George Ho (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you could. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I narrowed down the scope and then reset the nomination time. --George Ho (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Ikan, I split the nomination away from the "Most Valued review candidates" section and put it into another section. --George Ho (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Remember he was a noted child actor too. Charles (talk) 09:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, I actually looked through all the photos in this more limited category. It's pretty nearly a tossup between this photo and File:Neil Patrick Harris (9448294366).jpg. The positives pretty nearly cancel themselves out. The bit of a finger in this one could disconcert someone, perhaps, whereas in the other, his head is leaning to the side. I'll say what the hell and  Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose I don't think we want VIs of people at every location they've ever attended unless it was significant, in which case it should be in scope i.e. getting an Oscar; collecting an honour/medal; getting married etc. (was this?). See current MVR below. Charles (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Charlesjsharp and Ikan Kekek: Somehow, the nomination was removed from the "New valued image nominations" section. I re-broadened the scope to reflect the removal and then reinserted the nomination back to MVR. --George Ho (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. NeilPatrickHarrisHWOFSept2011.jpg: 0
2. 5.3.10NeilPatrickHarrisByDavidShankbone.jpg: 0
3. Neil Patrick Harris 2011 (cropped).jpg: 0
4. Neil Patrick Harris (9446191273).jpg: 0 <--
=>
File:NeilPatrickHarrisHWOFSept2011.jpg: Undecided.
File:5.3.10NeilPatrickHarrisByDavidShankbone.jpg: Undecided.
File:Neil Patrick Harris 2011 (cropped).jpg: Undecided.
File:Neil Patrick Harris (9446191273).jpg: Undecided. <--
--DeFacto (talk). 20:56, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question - Can another nominee be added? I believe File:Altscheid Wegekreuz 1694.jpg is best in scope as it is clearest in showing details of the crucified Christ figure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Can anyone answer my question? I would vote for that file as best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Hi, It is not the same object, we must respect the scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize it wasn't the same object. How can the difference be made clear in the scope? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a slight misunderstanding about the purpose of MVR. We must choose, for the same scope, the best image, within the framework of an image that has already been labeled. Here it is. But you have proposed a 3rd image that has no link with the scope. That's what surprised me. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't understand, because the file is in the linked category, Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Altscheid, and the words "Altscheid Wegekreuz" are in its filename. What do you mean by it having no link with the scope? Is it the same wayside cross or not? I guess not, but in that case, since it's also a wayside cross and apparently in Altscheid, there is either a problem with the clarity of the scope or File:Altscheid Wegekreuz 1694.jpg is in the wrong category. I suppose there are actually at least two wayside crosses in Altscheid? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the descriptions carefully and follow the links, you may find out that there are four wayside crosses in Altscheid. All of them are officially listed as historical monuments and thus each of them deserves a scope, although they are in the same category. --Palauenc05 (talk) 19:16, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but the scopes have to be clearly distinguished somehow, don't they? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Question - Do we know the years of construction of all 4 wayside crosses in Altscheid? If so, that should be the distinguishing factor in the scope. But I think the point should be clarified. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think, does the bracket (1801) in the above scope mean? As I said before, read the links and you can answer your question yourself about the other three. --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously didn't get it at first.  Oppose on the basis that the other one, because it's in light, is somewhat more useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Altscheid Wegekreuz 1801.jpg: -1 (current VI within same scope) <--
2. Altscheid Wegekreuz (1801).jpg: 2 
=>
File:Altscheid Wegekreuz 1801.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <--
File:Altscheid Wegekreuz (1801).jpg: Promoted.
--DeFacto (talk). 18:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:35, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support - Best in scope of the two photos. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Altscheid Wegekreuz 1801.jpg: -1 (current VI within same scope)
2. Altscheid Wegekreuz (1801).jpg: 2  <--
=>
File:Altscheid Wegekreuz 1801.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former.
File:Altscheid Wegekreuz (1801).jpg: Promoted. <--
--DeFacto (talk). 18:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Mild  Oppose - I think File:Chanda Kochhar - India Economic Summit 2011.jpg has more character, irrespective of the motion blur from her hands making a gesture, as her face is more animated than in this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Chanda Kochhar at the India Economic Summit 2009 cropped.jpg: -1 <--
2. Chanda Kochhar - India Economic Summit 2011.jpg: 1
=>
File:Chanda Kochhar at the India Economic Summit 2009 cropped.jpg: Declined. <--
File:Chanda Kochhar - India Economic Summit 2011.jpg: Promoted.
--DeFacto (talk). 19:04, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support - I like her animated expression. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scores: 
1. Chanda Kochhar at the India Economic Summit 2009 cropped.jpg: -1
2. Chanda Kochhar - India Economic Summit 2011.jpg: 1 <--
=>
File:Chanda Kochhar at the India Economic Summit 2009 cropped.jpg: Declined.
File:Chanda Kochhar - India Economic Summit 2011.jpg: Promoted. <--
--DeFacto (talk). 19:05, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]