Support I think the scope just makes it past my "relevant for WMF projects" bar, and IMO this image is the best illustration of the subject. It also meets the other criteria. -- Slaunger20:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IMO the scope is too narrow. I do not see such big of a difference in architectural engineering of Residential Highrises around the world. The images displayed in Tower block look very similar to the one, which is nominated. That's why specifying New Zealand in the scope of the image does not make sense to me. Sorry.--Mbz101:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question The scope of the image is "High-rise apartment blocks in New Zealand", but the image is used only in Auckland CBD, which IMO might be outside of the scope. If the image is most Valued image of High-rise apartment blocks why it is not used in Tower block? Thank you.--Mbz101:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Info Unlike FP and the proposed VP processe at WP, current usage in articles best matching the scope is not a requirement. There are two reasons for that
Commons is not Wikipedia. Thus, the VIs are valued images as recommended for use by the Commons community. Different Wikimedia projects are not forced to use the commons VIs.
Unlike the FP and VP process at, e.g., Wikipedia, we have the luxury at Commons to be able to foremostly consider the media independend of current use instead of foremostly considering articles. That means we can promote newly uploaded material with the aim of actively promoting new valuable material, (which the other Wikimedia projects may not know even exists). That is, insetad of being a passive media repostitory concering valuable mages, where existing valuable material has to be discovered by WMF editors actively searching for it, we try to actively promote valued images. -- Slaunger06:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose and largest MVR score
by the end of the test review phase =>
(Test) Undecided -- Slaunger23:18, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
