Commons:Valued image candidates/Gate to the Royal Palace in Fes.jpg

Gate to the Royal Palace in Fes.jpg

promoted

Image
Nominated by	Reda benkhadra (talk) on 2017-09-02 18:27 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Side door of Dar el-Makhzen (Royal Palace in Fes, Morocco)
Used in	Global usage
Review (criteria)	Comment Please don't add new nominations to the top of the list. Other then that this looks good. Although it would be nice if the category had a short description. Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)  Done --Reda benkhadra (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2017 (UTC)  Support Best in scope and good shot! Sixflashphoto (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2017 (UTC)  Oppose The scope is not appropriate. it must be reduced to what the image shows. Attention there are seven doors it is necessary to designate which is shown. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:20, 3 September 2017 (UTC)  Support Good and informative image. For me it is not necessary to have a scope for every door of a building, every window and so on. -- Spurzem (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2017 (UTC) @Sixflashphoto: @Spurzem: Dar el-Makhzen is a palace which covers 80 hectares. the image shows only a minor door of this palace. None of the criteria is met. Review the rules. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2017 (UTC)  Comment I was already looking into this myself and I concur, the scope is far too broad. I don't think we need a scope for every door but a photo of a door to a building can't represent the scope of the entire building. Sixflashphoto (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC) @Archaeodontosaurus: As you know I can not review the rules but they should be revised. This time perhaps there is a meaningless image with a very tight scope being promoted while another very rare one is declined because of broad scope. That's not good and can not be purpose of the project valued image. -- Spurzem (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2017 (UTC) @Spurzem: This image is interesting and useful. I think we all agree on that. But the scope can not announce a splendid palace, and only shows the door. The scope must say: here is the door of the Palace. That's all! Why do you need to change the rules? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC) I tried to explain it but obviously my English is not good enough that you understand what I will say. -- Spurzem (talk) 17:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)  Comment @Sixflashphoto, Spurzem, and Archaeodontosaurus: This Royal Palace is closed to the public ([1]), that why the only thing doable is to take pictures of the main door. If in your eyes, a creation of a category that includes only the door is conceivable, I will be able to proceed that. --Reda benkhadra (talk) 23:38, 3 September 2017 (UTC) @Reda benkhadra: Well we move on. The problem is not complicated. It is the scope that needs to be improved; there is no reason to make a category for a door. The scope is good but we must add the word side door , that's all --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC) Scope changed from Dar el-Makhzen (Royal Palace in Fes, Morocco) to Side door of Dar el-Makhzen (Royal Palace in Fes, Morocco) {{{3}}} Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".  Support OK now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)  Support per Scope change. Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:22, 5 September 2017 (UTC) Result: 2 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:30, 7 September 2017 (UTC)