|
|
Review Page (edit) |
Nominated by:
Martinvl (talk) on 2020-09-14 20:49 (UTC) |
Scope:
Vehicle preceded by safety Red Flag |
Reason:
Between 1865 and 1896 the speed limit on British roads was 4 mph (6.4 km/h). In addition, a person carrying a red flag had to walk in front of the vehicle to warn people of its impending approach. The red flag used to warn people of the approach of this 1901 steam roller is typical of that era (although the steam roller itself was built 5 years after the act was repealed). -- Martinvl (talk) |
- Comment Please link an appropriate Commons category, rather than a Wikipedia article. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: Done Martinvl (talk) 10:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Scope changed from Vehicle preceded by safety Red Flag to Vehicle preceded by safety Red Flag --Martinvl (talk) 10:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
- @Archaeodontosaurus: What do you suggest as a scope? I could change the word "Vehicle" to "Steamroller" if you would prefer that. Before making a suggestion, please take note that:
- The Red Flag Acts (see en:Locomotive_Acts, de:Red Flag Act or fr:Locomotive Act) only applied in the United Kingdom between 1865 and 1896 and in the US state of Vermont between 1894 and 1896.
- This act is covered in eleven different language versions of Wikipedia (three listed above).
- Only one of those versions (German) had an image before I added my photo.
- As far as I can see, there is only one other image of a red flag in Commons that could be used to illustrate any of these articles and that image is obviously posed (it was taken in about 1896). My image shows an actual action photo.
- Martinvl (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose: as the "Red Flag Act" was repealed in 1896, it is incongruous to see later vehicles (the 1901 steamroller and a 2000s Transit van) in an image purporting to depict it, especially when there is another, apparently contemporaneous, image in the same category. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
|
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 21:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC) |
|
Review it! (edit) |
Nominated by:
Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) on 2020-09-15 18:59 (UTC) |
Scope:
Flag of Mexico |
Reason:
This image is the best image in Commons depicting the Mexican flag, in particular it is in .SVG format rather that .TIFF, .PNG or .JPG format, the central emblem is in colour, not black and white and its ratio (4:7) is as per Mexican law. In addition, the detail of the emblem is well executed. -- Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) |
- Comment Please fix your scope. Your scope is the flag of Mexico, and the only argument that you need to believe and make is that this is the very best image of the Mexican flag on this site. Unless you've checked all the other images of the Mexican flag on this site, you can't make that argument. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek:, please in spanish please,Also, I ask you please be specific, I don't know what you mean by: "fix your scope" If you give me an example, I would appreciate it.--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek:Please, what this is the scope?, I don't understand, nor do I understand English, I have to use Google translator and sometimes the translator is not good at translating.--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Your scope has to be Flag of Mexico. I don't know the Spanish word for scope, but right now, the line in question says "scope=SVG flags of Mexico". The file type is not relevant to how it looks as a thumbnail in an article. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Aurelio de Sandoval: The general rules about "Valued images" (imágenes valiosas) are available in both English and Spanish. By comparing the two texts, I believe that the Spanish word for "scope" is "ámbito". The rules about "scope" are in English (scope), French (domaine) and German (Beriech). Unfortunately they are not yet available in Spanish. I hope that this helps. Martinvl (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Martinvl:Ready, I have already placed the scopes, now can you make my image valuable?--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Aurelio de Sandoval: I have taken the liberty of writing the scope in the way in which it is expected - Note that there is only one link. Also, I have removed the item in the global list. If you click on "Global usage" you can see everywhere where it is used. Your image has been used over 500 times!
- Since I have helped you, I will leave it to somebody else to judge whether or not it is a valuable image. I hope that this helps you. Martinvl (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Martinvl: Thank you really, I appreciate that you have helped me, the truth is I am not good at nominating images.--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Now that the scope is correct, please help us choose which image of the Mexican flag is best in scope. What criteria should we use? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I have been helping @Aurelio de Sandoval: to prepare VI submissions, so I have rewritten the reason for him. (I e-mailed him to suggest that he consider me as his teacher). I would normally have removed his text, but I have left the struck-out text so that he can see what I have written. I suggest that he removed the text himself so that he can understand what has been done. Martinvl (talk) 16:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Martinvl:I have already deleted the previous description, thanks really thanks for helping me.-- Aurelio de Sandoval (talk). 17:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: The other criterion they must use is that it is the most used flag in that category and that it is the most faithful reproduction of the flag and that it has an excellent resolution quality.-- Aurelio de Sandoval (talk). 17:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment The fact that a particular image is most used is irrelevant to determining whether it's the best in scope. Resolution is not very relevant, either, as Valued Image Candidates rules require us to judge each photo at review size. So I am still confused about how we can fairly judge seemingly identical images of the flag and find one best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Info @Ikan Kekek: I am posting on behalf of @Aurelio de Sandoval:. There are 47 images in the Category:National flag of Mexico. Of these, only 17 are in .SVG format - the preferred format for vector images. Nine are not recangular, leaving eight files. Of these eight, only three show the correct badge in the centre of the flag in colour. One of the remaining three is in a 2:3 format while the other two follow the 4:7 layout specified in Mexican legislation. The main differnece between the two is that one has a border whle the other does not. Since it is easier to add a border than to remove it, I go for the one without the border. Furthermore the descrption of the one without the border gives a full details of the relevant Mexican legislation, including Pantone data. Finally, in the event of a tie, the fineness of the detail should come into play as a tie-breaker. Again, in this instance the nominated file wins. Martinvl (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
|
Open for review. |
|
Review it! (edit) |
Nominated by:
— Rhododendrites talk | on 2020-09-15 23:42 (UTC) |
Scope:
8 Spruce Street |
Best in Scope, I think, though it has competition. It's possible there might be a dust spot just above the right side of the roof. It looks that way at smaller resolution but not clearly so at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I feel that the color in this photo isn't accurate. In all other photos the color of the building is silver, but this appears to be more of a white/blue color. Also see this Google Street View. Thoughts? —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Your point of view is valid. I've seen this building many times, and it indeed is not blue and is more silver. However, it reflects the sky. If we reject this over the color, which one do you think is BIS? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Comment But the other structures shown in that picture distract the viewer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Then how about File:Gehry 8 Spruce fr BB Pk Pier 1 jeh.jpg? I just don't like the upwards angle of the picture you suggested; I feel like it's an awkward angle and it doesn't show the shape of the building well in my opinion, if you understand what I mean. Perhaps there should be different scopes for different sides of the building? —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Kestreltail, Ikan Kekek: I took a stab at color correction and uploaded a new version. No worries if another one turns out to be the best in scope, though. — Rhododendrites talk | 20:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I actually find the composition of this shot to be perfect, only the color doesn't seem to quite represent the actual building. Have you considered nominating to FPC, Rhododendrites? —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
-
- Question Should we do a most valued review? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment I'm not sure anymore between that one and this one. This one has more detail, though the building is smaller within the thumbnail. And of course this composition is better. Plus the sky is probably too dark in that photo. I'll consider for another day but may reinstate my supporting vote for this nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Have you considered nominating to FPC - Thanks for suggesting. I was hoping for something FPC level when I took the shots, but I failed to get enough on the left/right. The effect is, IMO, a solid VI but without the wider perspective or better lighting I don't think it would fare well at FPC. I could be wrong (I often am), but I'm not intending to nominate. :) — Rhododendrites talk | 02:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
|
Open for review. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Review it! (edit) |
Nominated by:
Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) on 2020-09-18 00:06 (UTC) |
Scope:
Emiliano Zapata |
Reason:
Emiliano Zapata was one of the people who fought in Mexico against the dictatorship to give the Mexicans the lands that belonged to them and this is one of the most iconic images that are remembered of him. -- Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) |
Previous reviews
- Comment The scope must not contain the institution template. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Oppose No new element since the previous appointments. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Scope changed from Emiliano Zapata by HJ Gutierrez.
institution QS:P195,Q5059962
to Emiliano Zapata --Martinvl (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
|
Open for review. |
|
Review Page (edit) |
Nominated by:
Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) on 2020-09-17 17:52 (UTC) |
Scope:
José María Morelos, signed portrait |
Previous reviews
- Oppose No new element since the previous appointments. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Archaeodontosaurus:Whoever understands it, really say something logical.--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Nobody was interested enough in the previous nomination to support it. Renominating the image without any additional information is unlikely to change that, and indeed may be counter-productive. I have removed {{Institution}} as it's not part of the scope. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Rodhullandemu:Ready, I have already placed the scopes, now can you make my image valuable?--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I have no opinion either way on the merits of the image. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Archaeodontosaurus: Scope is now in line with normal VI rules.-- Aurelio de Sandoval (talk). 18:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I think the scope you really want is José María Morelos, portrait. That said, there are several portraits in scope, and I really have no idea which one is best. How are you determining which one you think is best? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek:It is determined because this is the only image signed by José María Morelos and if you think very well it must be valuable to have an image signed by one of the most important heroes of the Independence of Mexico.-- Aurelio de Sandoval (talk). 14:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek:It may even be the only one-- Aurelio de Sandoval (talk). 14:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Then make your scope "José María Morelos, signed portrait". Don't use parentheses on any part of the scope - you need all of it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
|
Open for review. May be closed as Declined if the last vote was added no later than 21:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC) |
|
Review Page (edit) |
Nominated by:
Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) on 2020-09-17 23:57 (UTC) |
Scope:
Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla, (portrait) |
Previous reviews
- Oppose No new element since the previous appointments. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Archaeodontosaurus:You really contradict yourself, you told me previously "The geocoding is that of the National Palace", now that is what you want--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 14:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- @Archaeodontosaurus:Ready, I have already placed the scopes, now can you make my image valuable?--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 15:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment Have you noticed that your appointments are very different from others? Probablmenet because you do not meet the criteria of the regulation. Read the rules again. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- There must be geocoding in the caption --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:57, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
|
Open for review. |
|
|
Review Page (edit) |
Nominated by:
—Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2020-09-18 02:33 (UTC) |
Scope:
1285 Avenue of the Americas |
- Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment BIS, but we rarely use any name other than 6th Avenue, so I would suggest renaming the scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment I am aware that New Yorkers call it 6th Avenue, but I did a quick Google search of "1285 6th Avenue" and most of the results were still 1285 Avenue of the Americas. Most building databases list this as 1285 Avenue of the Americas. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Question And it's not just that they haven't updated the name or address for a few decades? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
-
|
Open for review. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Review Page (edit) |
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2020-06-22 15:28 (UTC) |
Scope:
Detail polder mill Zwaantje, Nijemirdum National monument. |
- Comment Can you further document in the images notes what this mechanical device is and what it is used for. It looks like a structure tensioning device to help stabilize the mill when the windmill rotor blades are turning but perhaps it has another purpose. Just curious... --GRDN711 (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Answer: with this device you turn the mill to the wind. So that the mill optimally catches the wind from whatever direction the wind comes.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support Useful and well photographed detail to support mill image, also is also a VI. --GRDN711 (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment@GRDN711: I changed "nominated" to "supported". Please confirm that this is what you meant? Martinvl (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
- Comment@Martinvl: Thank you for changing this nomination to the correct status. I usually remember but... --GRDN711 (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
|
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 21:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC) |
|
Review Page (edit) |
Nominated by:
GRDN711 (talk) on 2020-08-25 01:57 (UTC) |
Scope:
Fram (ship, 2007) - IMO 9370018 - frontal view |
Reason:
Best frontal view of this expedition ship. -- GRDN711 (talk) |
- Info This image is being re-nominated for VI from MVR, with a revised scope that incorporates frontal view. --GRDN711 (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
- Support no problem now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
|
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 21:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|