This image IMHO best of all currently available pictures illustrates how Puerto Madero, which today is an area of modern high-rise buildings and fancy offfices, shops and restaurants, looked only 10 years ago: An abandoned, rotten area with only ruins and ship wrecks. -- H005 (talk)
Info I see your point and somewhat expected that argument. Probably some knowledge of Puerto Madero is required to understand the scope. If you know Puerto Madero (and I think everyone will agree that Puerto Madero is not too narrow a scope) and its history you will probably understand the reason. There are three major eras in its history: The first from its construction 1880-something until the late 1920s, when this was a busy port, then it was abandoned for many decades as Porto Nuevo had been built next door. This was the time when it looked like on the photo for many decades. And finally in the late 1990s they startet to clean it all up and turned it into a posh quarter with modern high-rise office buildings, hotels, shops and stylish restaurants. Puerto Madero in these three eras was so different and distinct that there cannot be "the" valued image for Puerto Madero all together, you can only have a valued image for each era. I hope that's understandable? -- H005 (talk) 12:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question What scope title would you deem more suitable? Puerto Madro 1930 - 2000? Puerto Madero during abandonment? -- H005 (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The former would surely be an improvement. However, if you would have more images from (several) different years, maybe a set showing the temporal evolution would be interesting. Lycaon (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Unfortunately I haven't, I have only two pictures that I have already uploaded, and I could only find one other picture of that era on Commons. A pity, considering how this area right in the center of Buenos Aires shaped the city's landscape for decades. -- H005 (talk) 22:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I withdraw the nomination, as I see the scope was not understandable, and will submit a new nomination with a new scope. -- H005 (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
