Review
(criteria) |
 Scope changed from Handstand to Handstand --Lambtron (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- 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a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
Scope changed from Handstand to Handstands on floors --Lambtron (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- 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a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
 Question This is the first time I've proposed a VI candidate but I get the feeling I'm doing it all wrong. First I tried scope "handstand" and was told that's too broad. So I changed it to "handstands on floors" because that's the narrowest category I can find that the image seems to fit into. I was then told "This category is too broad for us to find an image that can represent" by Archaeodontosaurus, but I don't know what that means. Does it mean that this image cannot possibly be a VI because there is no category narrow enough for it? If that's not what's meant, can someone suggest an appropriate scope that might be sufficiently narrow? I would appreciate any advice or help from more experienced editors. Lambtron (talk) 05:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- It is very difficult, the general scope still pose the same problems. Why this file:Arctocephalus pusillus in Tobu Zoo Park 002.jpg rather than that file:Fremont Solstice Parade 2007 - gymnasts 08.jpg. There is too much subjectivity. We went in discussions mode to have time to think together about a scope. Other advice would be welcome. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The current scope is "handstands on floors", so I don't understand why this image is being judged against a seal standing on its flippers on a bench, or why it is thought to have a value equal to an image of people doing various things on the ground against a cluttered background. I understand that subjectivity is involved here, but further narrowing of the scope will soon render a VI promotion meaningless because this image will be the only one in scope (e.g., "two-handed handstands by human dancers on stage floors"). I've surveyed the images in the current scope and thought it obvious that this image is one of very few that have VI potential, so I'm mystified by your reluctance to either support it or identify viable competitors. Also, I'm surprised that no one else has shown interest here, and concerned that this nomination may be denied without due consideration. All in all, it's been a discouraging first nomination experience so far. Lambtron (talk) 15:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Yann -- I added geolocation to the image as you suggested. Lambtron (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I still think the scope is not focused enough. Quality of file:Arctocephalus pusillus in Tobu Zoo Park 002.jpg, is much better. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] Support Best in scope. Archaeodontosaurus, I think that your comment is not helpful. Actually the image you mentioned doesn't belong to this category. I removed it. Yann (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]- Sorry I have the wrong address file:Fremont Solstice Parade 2007 - gymnasts 08.jpg. The misunderstanding is rather fun, I had no intention of harming our friend. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be judging based solely on image quality, Archaeodontosaurus, but aren't VIs only required to look good at review size? Also, what about the preferred quality of having no distracting, irrelevant elements? It seems very unfair to me that you are still opposed when you have neither identified a viable alternative nor given a helpful explanation. Lambtron (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The scope does not seem to me likely to give an image of value, without there was controversy. The image that is proposed does not seem to me good technical quality. The example I give is a expemple, not a proposal for a vote. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand your arguments -- could you please be a bit more specific? In particular, what VI criteria were you referring to when you implied the technical quality is too low? Also, what were you trying to show with your example, if not that it could also be "best in scope"? Lambtron (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentArchaeodontosaurus, you registered an oppose vote earlier and justified it by saying "scope too broad". That reasoning is valid only if you consider other in-scope images to also be possible candidates. Would you please either (1) identify at least one of those other possible candidates, or (2) revise the reason for your opposition, or (3) cancel your oppose vote? Please forgive my bluntness, but I think it's extremely unfair, and somewhat negligent of you to just leave your oppose there without plausible explanation. Lambtron (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- This sope can not receive picture VI. As a butterfly or a car, or sunset. Risk of discusions trigger endless. Thank you for having demonstrated. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the thoughtful reply, Archaeodontosaurus; your reasoning escapes me but you've made your position quite clear. Is no one else willing to consider this nomination? At this point I would welcome virtually any help or advice from other editors -- even opposing votes, as long as they are accompanied by useful explanations. Lambtron (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I'm afraid I have to disagree with my very good friend Archaeo. In my opinion, the part of the scope "on floors" makes the whole scope acceptable. And even if the picture is not technicaly perfect, i think honestly that it is the best in the chosen scope.--Jebulon (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- I am very pleased that the other participant is shown. Even if I do not agree with them, it was a nice discussion. And finished well.
 --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
|
