Review
(criteria)
|
 Oppose Each photo is a valuable illustration of the scope in its own way, but I do not think that the photos as a set are significantly more valuable then as isolated photos. The photos do not seem to follow a common objective of illustrating the shipyard in a convincing manner. --Slaunger (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply] Info This nomination was made as the conclusion of an existing debate. --Eusebius (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for directing me to that interesting discussion, which was a pleasure to read as it shows a fruitful collboration between editors on how to best illustrate a certain scope and actually go out into the field and do something about it! Excellent. So what you have acheived is a valuable extension of images in that category, which is great. However, I still do not think it warrants promotion as a VI set, as it for me requires something else, which shows a special thought out relation between the photos where it is most meaningful to see them together, cf. already promoted sets. Here I get the impression that they work just as well as separate photos - each with its own qualities. --Slaunger (talk) 07:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But none of them could be, as a separate photo, illustrative enough of the scope to be a valued image for it. Even if we split the scope according to the two existing sites, we currently have no decent view of the Prairie au Duc site as a whole. Here it is represented by three pictures (but I think we could do with two, by dropping the view on the slipway two). Based on the images we have, and not on the ones we could have, I believe the present nomination to be the best way to propose valued images for this scope. --Eusebius (talk) 08:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I support Eusebius's point of view. Having discussed what is representative of Dubigeon's history, I guess this set is more relevant than isolated picts. This set shows the different sites of Dubigeon, its historical expansion, its infrastructure and material means. So, what else ?
 Cyril5555 (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC) ( @ Eusebius : thanks for helping )[reply]
- (ec) Perhaps it would be an entirely different kind of image which would be the best illustration of the shipyard. As a photo, I guess it should be possible (in principle) to get an aerial shot of the entire area? Alternatively, a good map of the shipyard indicating where the different elements and locations are placed? I agree with Cyril5555 that the photos illustrate various important aspects of the shipyard, but I maintain that, as a set, it is not significantly more valuable than the value of each photo added together. Sorry. --Slaunger (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment @Slaunger: excuse me, I didn't get your point, why exactly do you reject the idea of a set? This set is more about the history of a firm (the company "Chantiers Dubigeon") than about a single shipyard. An important point is that this company was active in two different sites at least, in two different locations (Chantenay site and Beaulieu site). But I tend to think that it would be exaggerated to split the nomination into two different VICs, with a subscope for each site, for a company which is now defunct. The insertion of the last image (the main adminstrative building) could be discussed, and yes, it would be nice to have an image with the former hangars (the nefs Dubigeon): it's the last step of that industrial story, the rehabilitation of a former production structure, part of Chantiers Dubigeon, into a new cultural equipment. But as Eusebius noticed, there are copyright issues with the recent photos on Commons showing those hangars. @Eusebius: a) perhaps should you indicate in the caption of the three last images that they concern the Beaulieu (or Prairie au Duc) site? b) what about the photo you took recently of Beaulieu site? It doesn't need to be very nice, if it is informative :-) --Myrabella (talk) 13:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do not reject the idea of having a set nomination for this scope. It is just that I do not think the currently nominated set of photos constitute what I perceive as a Valued image set. Honestly, if you compare the set nomination with other promoted sets, don't you think there is a significant difference as promoted sets are composed of images, which belong together much more naturally? I am not claiming it would be easy to make an adequate set nomination. In fact I am in doubt about how one would that for this company. Also thank you for clarifying that the scope is more about the company than a shipyard, that was a point I had not fully understood in my previous comments. --Slaunger (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I followed your advice and looked at the promoted sets again, but there isn't any set about a company or an industry, unless I'm wrong. So, it's difficult to fairly compare. Perhaps might we be open-minded about a new kind of set? --Myrabella (talk) 20:32, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That is correct, but extrapolating from what we have this does not seem like a set to me, but that is a subjective opinion, and by all means if you think a set promotion is warranted in this case, I really think you should support it. The more reviews on a nomination the more representative it is
 . --Slaunger (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Yes, you're right :-) For image No. 2, I could have prefered an image showing some water near the yellow Titan crane (like this one) but the ramp is interesting too. --Myrabella (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Slaunger: just for info, it is not possible to get a reasonably descriptive single image showing both sites, they're too distant. Myrabella: I'll work on it (I'm just lazy and a bit busy right now), but I don't think it is more informative that the second and fourth images of this set. I have added "Prairie au Duc site" in the captions. --Eusebius (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah OK. Thank you for telling me that. Again I understand it is a difficult task to properly illustrate the scope as either a single image or a set of images, and I also agree that it seems a bit over the top to subdivide into site-specific scopes. I do not have a good solution to it, I am afraid. --Slaunger (talk) 19:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Info General view on the Prairie au Duc site, taken from quite far away and not so illustrative, according to me. I think the far right part could be cropped if necessary. I'm glad I cannot vote on this one :-) --Eusebius (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice. Should we add it to the set? A few remarks though:
- Comment It's up to you, but then I'd suggest to reorganize it: 1) The map; 2) Chanteny site; 3) Prairie au Duc site: Titan crane and slipway n.3; 4) Prairie au Duc site: the main administrative building. Let's drop the view of slipway n.2 to condense the set. Side comments: a) by now, the result of the nomination would be "undecided". b) Instead of two or three views for the same site, an overall image of Prairie au Duc site would be preferable, showing, from left to right: the former hangars, the administrative building, the quays, the yellow Titan crane (it's a command for your next time in Nantes , and after that we could discuss about a "Most Valued Image Set Review"
 ). --Myrabella (talk) 09:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, let's close this one as undecided then. MVISR: please have mercy. About the overall image: it would be difficult to get a nice and descriptive view. There are Commons photographers far better than me in Nantes, maybe they could do something. --Eusebius (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
_-_Nantes.jpg){kind=link}
