Comment - Congratulations on the feature, but VIs are judged by a different standard than FPs. Just because this is an FP, that doesn't prove that it's the most representative or generally useful image of the Japanese garden. Moreover, what should we do if you or someone else takes a better photo of some completely different view within the garden? Nominate that to knock this out as VI in the same scope? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sorry, I don't know why I didn't pay more attention to the limited scope you used; most of what I wrote above wasn't relevant. However, I think that as a thumbnail portraying just the cistern without anything else distracting the viewer's eye, File:Japanese Garden Stone Cistern Fountain NBG 3 LR.jpg is actually most useful. Please make a counter-argument. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:39, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Photo 3 you mention is too bright, which may or may not be fixable, plus I also find the large dry spot on it highly distracting and the big boulder on the right is more distracting in photo 3. PumpkinSkytalk10:37, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest, instead, that there's much less distracting scenery in photo 3. Also, keep in mind that at VIC, we are considering which photo is most useful at thumbnail size, not larger sizes. I will respectfully Oppose, and we can see what other people think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I also like the other one better: I think it displays better as a thumbnail since it's brighter - it's not too bright IMO.--Peulle (talk) 20:31, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Ikan Kekek: @Peulle: , the word thumbnail does not appear in the VI/VIC requirements even once. The closest requirement is "online context", which does not perforce translate into "thumbnail". So where did you get this "requirement" from? PumpkinSkytalk01:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Review procedure
On the review page the image <!!--or image set--> 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.
Support The image presented is the best for this scope. The pipe must be seen for a good understanding of the subject. The new rule on the sticker you have been trying for some time to impose is artificial and above all is a nonsense. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Archaeodontosaurus, I strongly object to your claim that I am trying to impose a new rule. This is the existing rule. Since this has come up before, would you please propose a coherent new rule on the talk page? It's essential for us to agree on what size of photo we are using to judge photos nominated for VI. But in this case, I would point out that regardless of what size you are considering "review size" to be, the question isn't which picture is the best picture, but which picture depicts the scope most clearly and with the least distracting elements, and is therefore the best for this particular scope. The nominated picture has already been judged to be an FP, which is an overall appraisal of the photo, but that does not mean it is thereby the best in this scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you will take up the challenge of proposing a new rule. I don't appreciate being treated abusively for not regarding the current rules as a de facto dead letter. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This point had never been problematic for years, it has appeared in recent months. It is in this sense that I find it inappropriate and artificial. The right size of the examination is the one that makes good judgment; Everyone should be free to examine the image at the size that he sees fit.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are both correct, the issue of what the rules and standards are has come up before. And it primarily comes from them not being written out, or written but not clear enough, and that people are totally free to invent their own. The problem with applying invented/non-codified rules is that it leads to massive inconsistencies. I know some people won't agree with me, and using this case as an example, for me it's ludicrous to have one person using/saying the "thumbnail" rule is correct and someone else to say/use a different photo size rule. This problem isn't endemic to VIC either, I've seen it at QIC and FPC. I would like to see much more consistency in this area but I know that's rather quixotic of me. PumpkinSkytalk10:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ikan is correct in that the VIC page says "On the review page the image <!!--or image set--> is presented in the review size." I still stand by my statement made at 10:57. There is way too much inconsistency in what the rules are or perceived to be. As for which of the two photos is best for VIC, I think the nom'd photo is. I didn't like photo 3 so I kept taking shots of the cistern til I got one that I felt was worthy. Ikan and I simply disagree on which photo is best for VIC. PumpkinSkytalk11:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems to me that the rule is much more clearly laid out in VI. Unlike FPC and QIC, these rules are not "guidelines", but clearly stated as "criteria" which must be satisfied: "There are six criteria, and to succeed the candidate has to satisfy all six." and "The image must look good on-screen at the review size (e.g. 480x360 pixels for a standard 4:3 landscape image)." There seems to be a little leeway in the exact size, but there is no doubt that Valued Images are not supposed to be judged in the same way as FP/QIs.--Peulle (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would strongly urge everyone to participate in a thread on the talk page that discusses thumbnails at VIC. Better yet, if anyone would be willing to propose a coherent new rule that would satisfy more people, that would be great. It's clear that Archaeodontosaurus would rather have the rule be whatever he thinks about each individual photo, and therefore, no new proposed rule will be forthcoming from him, so this task needs to be taken up by others. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose everything else aside, I don't see why we would need/want a valued image in this scope: Usually we require stationary objects like buildings etc. to be of more than local interest. If that's the case for this fountain (made by a famous artist, listed monument, ...), it's not well-documented. --El Grafo (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@El Grago: That's a rule I've never had thrown at me before at VIC, but that's normal here. There are gobs of examples of that rule being ignored at VIC. More selective enforcement. PumpkinSkytalk12:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@PumpkinSky: There seems to be tendency among voters to ignore this part of the rules, but personally I have used it quite regularly in the past. Maybe it is outdated and should be removed. If there's consensus for that, I won't stand in the way, but as long as it's there I'll respect it. Sorry for putting you off, that certainly was not my intention! --El Grafo (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2017 (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.
