Oppose This isn't the best image of this member of the animal kingdom in the commons collection any longer, although it had been until recently. The measure reference is nice in this image of this subject but to me doesn't compensate for the difference in resolution especially since a size reference could be added to this image. -- carol (tomes) 02:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Info When voting, please remember to check the status and update if needed, as that controls the border colour. Thanks. --MichaelMaggs07:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The resolution is greater by multitudes and there is also an edited option for the same image. It is impressive how many people view the FP Candidates and do not replace the images in articles on the encyclopedic wiki (me included). It is equally impressive how making it a demand (that images have to be used in articles) can be the cause not so high of quality images to be used for the articles. -- carol (tomes) 07:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --Absurd and irrelevant. These two pictures concern different species, living on different hosts. Lycaon08:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there to be a VI Image for each species in a genus? I looked at the category and there are three images there, one is an edited version of the other. You changed my support for no supportable reason. There was a discussion of how many photographs of high rise buildings were to be considered VI. How many species of this animal are there? -- carol (tomes) 09:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clever! That would mean one only for Equus! Are you going to choose between the different kinds of zebra's, donkeys and horses, which one has to represent Equus? I think not. I 'm even scared to think how Acacia is going to be handled then: one in a thousand? Lycaon12:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Availability. As soon as parasites are domesticated, I am quite certain that there will be battles between people about who has the best image of that species of domesticated or farmed parasite (like has happened to equus, flowers, etc). BTW, the uploader of the images should be ashamed, because the species differences of these images is not obvious nor very well documented here -- no gallery and no nicely crafted category. A fact which allows me to claim (and I do make this claim) that the nominated image here is not the best image of this critter in the commons collection. -- carol (tomes) 12:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One of the examples of a suitable scope at Commons:Valued image scope is "A visually distinct plant or animal species". So, in my view both species should be ok provided that there are visible features within the two images which allows the species to be separated. I don't think it would be allowable to have two VIs for visually indistinguishable species that could be separated only by dissection or microscopic or chemical analysis. That might be relevant for example for some lichens and fungi, as well as the pupal stages of some insects. Lycaon, are there features in these images which allow separation? --MichaelMaggs13:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any registered user can review the valued image candidates.
Comments are welcome from everyone, but neither the nominator nor the original image author may vote (that does not exclude voting from users who have edited the image with a view to improving it).
Nominations should be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. Please read those and the page on scope carefully before reviewing. Reviewing here is a serious business, and a reviewer who just breezes by to say "I like it!" is not adding anything of value. You need to spend the time to check the nomination against every one of the six VI criteria, and you also need to carry out searches to satisfy yourself on the "most valuable" criterion.
On the review page the image is presented in the review size. You are welcome to view the image in full resolution by following the image links, but bear in mind that it is the appearance of the image at review size which matters.
Check the candidate carefully against each of the six VI criteria. The criteria are mandatory, and to succeed the candidate has to satisfy all six.
Use the where used field, if provided, to study the current usage of the candidate in Wikimedia projects. If you find usage of interest do add relevant links to the nomination.
Look for other images of the same kind of subject by following the links to relevant categories in the image page, and to any Commons galleries.
If you find another image which is already a VI within essentially the same scope, the candidate and the existing VI should be moved to Most Valued Review (MVR) to determine which one is the more valued.
If you find one or more other images which in your opinion are equally or more valued images within essentially the same scope, you should nominate these images as well and move all the candidates to an MVR.
Once you have made up your mind, edit the review page and add your vote or comment to the review parameter as follows:
You think that the candidate meets all of the six mandatory criteria.
If the nomination fails one of the six criteria, but in a way that can be fixed, you can optionally let the nominator know what needs to be done using the {{VIF}} template.
Your comment goes immediately before the final closing braces "}}" on the page.
How to update the status
Finally, change the status of the nomination if appropriate:
status=nominated When no votes or only neutral votes have been added to the review field (blue image border).
status=supported When there is at least one {{Support}} vote but no {{Oppose}} votes (light green image border).
status=opposed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote but no {{Support}} votes (red image border).
status=discussed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote and one {{Support}} vote (yellow image border).
Remember the criteria: 1. Most valuable 2. Suitable scope 3. Illustrates well 4. Fully described 5. Geocoded 6. Well categorized.
The nominator is allowed to make changes in scope as the review proceeds, for example in response to reviewer votes or comments. Whenever a scope is changed the nominator should post a signed comment at the bottom of the review area using {{VIC-scope-change|old scope|new scope|--~~~~}}, and should also leave a note on the talk page of all existing voters asking them to reconsider their vote. A support vote made before the change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn.
