Comment - It's a very good photo and virtually guaranteed to become an FP very soon, but what makes it a notable scope? (And I fixed your scope: You needed a colon after the double open brackets.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan Kekek, Documentation of time and architecture style rapidly disappearing, to me far more notable than this scope: "Unimog 404 cabrio with tarpauline, front" that was supported above. FYI, it's already an FP. PumpkinSkytalk01:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question Do you know what the architectural style is called? That might be a better scope than the name of the farmstead, if we don't expect an article about the farmstead to be created (but I suppose, with all the photos you took, it could be created). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:13, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, Ikan. Well, I'm not an architecture expert, but I think it could safely be called Vernacular architecture (en wiki article). For some examples of similar farm houses, see [1] and [2], especially the top left photo. I've been all over the Southern US, and there are still many examples of this type of farmhouse standing, but they are disappearing quickly. Based on my personal experience, this style was in heavy use from at least as far back as the mid-late 1800s to at least the mid and even late 1900s. I haven't seen a new house built in this style in a long time. You and anyone else feel free to change the scope. PumpkinSkytalk02:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So many distinct styles of vernacular architecture at the second link! Though this certainly could illustrate one such style. Does anyone else have a suggestion for an optimal scope? I do agree that this can be a useful photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Any registered user can review the valued image candidates.
Comments are welcome from everyone, but neither the nominator nor the original image author may vote (that does not exclude voting from users who have edited the image with a view to improving it).
Nominations should be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. Please read those and the page on scope carefully before reviewing. Reviewing here is a serious business, and a reviewer who just breezes by to say "I like it!" is not adding anything of value. You need to spend the time to check the nomination against every one of the six VI criteria, and you also need to carry out searches to satisfy yourself on the "most valuable" criterion.
On the review page the image is presented in the review size. You are welcome to view the image in full resolution by following the image links, but bear in mind that it is the appearance of the image at review size which matters.
Check the candidate carefully against each of the six VI criteria. The criteria are mandatory, and to succeed the candidate has to satisfy all six.
Use the where used field, if provided, to study the current usage of the candidate in Wikimedia projects. If you find usage of interest do add relevant links to the nomination.
Look for other images of the same kind of subject by following the links to relevant categories in the image page, and to any Commons galleries.
If you find another image which is already a VI within essentially the same scope, the candidate and the existing VI should be moved to Most Valued Review (MVR) to determine which one is the more valued.
If you find one or more other images which in your opinion are equally or more valued images within essentially the same scope, you should nominate these images as well and move all the candidates to an MVR.
Once you have made up your mind, edit the review page and add your vote or comment to the review parameter as follows:
You think that the candidate meets all of the six mandatory criteria.
If the nomination fails one of the six criteria, but in a way that can be fixed, you can optionally let the nominator know what needs to be done using the {{VIF}} template.
Your comment goes immediately before the final closing braces "}}" on the page.
How to update the status
Finally, change the status of the nomination if appropriate:
status=nominated When no votes or only neutral votes have been added to the review field (blue image border).
status=supported When there is at least one {{Support}} vote but no {{Oppose}} votes (light green image border).
status=opposed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote but no {{Support}} votes (red image border).
status=discussed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote and one {{Support}} vote (yellow image border).
Remember the criteria: 1. Most valuable 2. Suitable scope 3. Illustrates well 4. Fully described 5. Geocoded 6. Well categorized.
The nominator is allowed to make changes in scope as the review proceeds, for example in response to reviewer votes or comments. Whenever a scope is changed the nominator should post a signed comment at the bottom of the review area using {{VIC-scope-change|old scope|new scope|--~~~~}}, and should also leave a note on the talk page of all existing voters asking them to reconsider their vote. A support vote made before the change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn.
