Commons:Valued image candidates/Església de Sant Jaume - Alcúdia - Capella de la nostra Senyora de la Muntanya Carmelo.jpg

Església de Sant Jaume - Alcúdia - Capella de la nostra Senyora de la Muntanya Carmelo.jpg

promoted

Image
Nominated by	Llez (talk) on 2015-11-20 16:22 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Església de Sant Jaume, Alcúdia, Majorca, Capella de la nostra Senyora de la Muntanya Carmelo
Used in	Global usage Linked by category to en:Church of St. Jaume and de:Sant Jaume (Alcúdia) See also [1]
Review (criteria)	Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)  OpposeThe scope for this image does not meet the criteria in here. Specifically, the rules state "When appropriate, the building scope can be divided in a "XXX (exterior)" scope and a "XXX (interior)" scope, ... Additional scopes can exceptionally be proposed if some part of the building is particularly worth of interest (for instance a remarkable crypt or sanctuary)". Although this church has sufficient architectural significance that it warrants a VI of the interior and one of the exterior, I cannot see anything that makes this chapel sufficiently noteworthy that it should have its own VI. Martinvl (talk) 08:12, 21 November 2015 (UTC)  Support It's true what the guidelines say, but I think that this scope is OK as it can be considered a work of art. Better by far than some of the VI nominations of inconsequential buildings of little historical, architectural or artistic merit that have been supported. Charles (talk) 08:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)  Comment @Charlesjsharp: May I also draw to attention that the guidance for Works of art states "Not every work of art is worth a Valued Image scope. A scope is justified for instance if the work is the most significant work (or one of the most significant works) of an artist having an article on its own on any Wikipedia, or if it is a seminal work in some way". I could not find any article in Wikipedia about the artists concerned. My understanding for the restrictions in VIs is to prevent people looking for suitable images to illustrate articles from being flooded with hundreds of images. Martinvl (talk) 12:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)  Question @ Martnvl: Why always opposing only my nominations (in the past few days [[2]], [[3]], and this one). On the other hand, we have "details of the interior" of other nominators at the same time (e.g. [[4]], [[5]], [[6]] and so on), which are obviously OK for you, for you didn't oppose. Can you please tell me resasons not to oppose in this cases but in mine??? What are the reasons that justify a scope on the one hand and do not justify in the other? And what's the difference between the scope of this nomination and this [7], which you obviously accept, or had you only forgotten to oppose??? --Llez (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2015 (UTC)  Support Obviously important enough to justify an own scope. --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2015 (UTC) Result: 3 support, 1 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)