View promotion |
Nominated by:
Slaunger on 2008-06-01 00:02 (UTC) |
Scope:
Juan Carlos I of Spain |
Used in:
15 different content pages | |
Previous reviews
 Info Renomination of test promoted candidate. -- Slaunger 00:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 Support Personally I prefer full body photos of persons rather than just portraits. But I must say that for the purpose og illustrating an infobox a smaller portrait fits better. And as a portrait of Juan Carlos I this is a rahter good one - especially when reminding how hard it can be to find free images of such persons. Furthermore I also think this bright version looks a bit better than the edited dark version. --EPO 16:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)- Info When voting, please remember to check the status and update if needed, as that controls the border colour. Thanks. --MichaelMaggs 20:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 Oppose Not geocoded. Should be easy to update as royal public lifes are very well documented. --Dereckson 14:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 Comment IMO it is a non-place related shot/studio-like (it could be anywhere) and thus mitigated as mentioned explicitly for this criterion. I do not htink it adds much value where the portrait was taken. -- Slaunger 14:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Comment since the description included location and event information, I geocoded it. – flamurai 00:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support Geocoding would obviously not be appropriate. --MichaelMaggs 16:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support Definitely valuable. It shows an important and notable member of the Spanish royal family. This man has a wide influence so the scope of the VI should be one of Juan Carlos in particular rather than the whole Spanish royal family. The value of this photo alone is enough for Chavez to shut up! :-) [1] Freedom to share 19:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support Satisfies all criteria. – flamurai 00:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support Excellent shot. I don't see how geocoding is useful in this case. --Lerdsuwa 09:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Result: 5 support, 1 oppose => Promoted.
Slaunger 19:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
|
| Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC) |
|
View opposition |
Nominated by:
Slaunger on 2008-01-07 ??:?? (UTC) |
Scope:
the Wind Point Lighthouse in Wisconsin. |
Used in:
|
Comment Best illustration of the subject and all lighthouses in Wisconsin for that matter. Good image page, geolocated, and categories.-- Slaunger 13:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 Question - what do you mean by "illustration of the subject" ? What subject: "lighthouses in Wisconsin", or "lighthouses" in general ? For an illustration of lighthouses in general, I'd expect one visibly close to the sea, located in some dunes, on a cliff, close to a port, on an island, or whatever... If you want an illustration of lighthouses in Wisconsin, than I don't know, as I have no idea what would be their particularities. Or is the subject "Wind Point Lighouse"? In that case, you can have thousands of valued images if you pick the best for each subject you can imagine. --LimoWreck 18:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It is a good question. Thank you for asking that. It made me rethink why I support the image. In principle it could be nominated as being the most valueable image of (general to specific) a lighthouse, all lighthouses in Wisconsin, or w:Wind Point Lighthouse. I agree with you that it is probably not the most valued image of a lighthouse on Commons for the reasons you mention (haven't really looked though). I think it is the best image of all lighthouses in Wisconsin, but is that valuable for Wikimedia projects? No, I doubt it. I cannot envision, e.g., a Wikipedia article dealing only with lighthouses in a state. So, no it is not at that level I see it as valuable either. Then, we have the lowest detail level, the "w:Wind Point Lighthouse" as a specific Lighthouse in a specific state in a specific country. I think it is the best image of that lighthouse, but is it valuable (enough) for Wikimedia projects? This is where it get's interesting. For this particular lighthouse it seems (from reading the Wikipedia article) that it is not just some arbitrary lighthouse. It is one of the oldest and tallest lighthouses at the Great lakes, it was designed by what seems to be a fairly well-known lighthouse architect, and it is in the National Register of Historic Places. Adding all these bits of value together it makes it to VI for me. Others may reach different conclusions. But I would not support a VI candidate image of just any lighthouse, which nobody cares about. Can there be very many VIs? Yes, quite a lot, but not of every subject you can image. The subject has to be of some interest to Wikimedia projects and this one makes the cut for me. It is also in the favour of the image that it is photographically an excellent image. Hope that clarified a little bit what I see VI is about - at least it did for me. ;-) -- Slaunger 19:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The scope is too narrow. Unless there is something remarkable about this particular lighthouse the scope needs to be broader; otherwise we will have to accept a new Valued Image for each separate building in the world. Suggest re-applying with a better scope. -- MichaelMaggs 17:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Oppose If it is only the best image of the building that isn't sufficient. I don't think it's the best lighthouse image. It may be the best Wisconsin lighthouse, if you want to renominate for that. Superm401 - Talk 09:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 oppose => Declined.
Slaunger 20:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
|
| Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC) |
|
View promotion |
Nominated by:
Slaunger on 2008-06-01 00:00 (UTC) |
Scope:
The construction of the Manhattan Bridge. |
Used in:
| |
Previous reviews
- Info Renomination of test promoted VIC. -- Slaunger 00:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support I searched Google images for photos of the Manhattan Bridge construction, and this seems to be the best one out there. – flamurai 04:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Info When voting, please remember to check the status and update if needed, as that controls the border colour. Thanks. --MichaelMaggs 07:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Support It satisfies all the criteria 1 to 6. --MichaelMaggs 07:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
--MichaelMaggs 07:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Info Used on 3 articles on en., and in Manhattan Bridge articles on ja., nl., es., zh. et uk. Not used on other biggest Wikipedia projects than en. (ie fr. de. pl.) --Dereckson 14:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Result => Promoted. Our very first valued image!
Rocket000 14:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
|
| Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC) |
|
View opposition |
Nominated by:
Slaunger on 2008-01-21 ??:?? (UTC) |
Scope:
Antelope Canyon |
- Comment Although this photo of Antelope Canyon is in the POTY 2007 final and IMO one of the most beautiful photos on Commons, it may not be as valuable as other Images of the same subject. For instance, Image:USA 10096-7-8 HDR Antelope Canyon Luca Galuzzi 2007.jpg (also a technically excellent FP of the same subject) may be considered more valuable due to the presence of a person in the photo, which provides a sense of scale. -- Slaunger 14:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Too abstract (missing physical reference context - is it 3 cm high or 30 meter ? Would be a good image for a difficult quiz). --Foroa 19:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 oppose -> Declined.
Slaunger 23:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
|
| Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC) |
|
|
