Comment The other image in the category File:Crkvaulunu.jpg is much more broadly used, and understandably so: it has better lighting, framing (from the ground) and context (info display is not empty). A really good framing is at Getty images -ELEKHHT14:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question is the scope broad enough? the VI guidelines state "Not any church is worth a Valued Image scope. Cathedral scopes are OK, but for other churches there should be a good reason, like being a pilgrimage place, being really famous, being architecturally exceptional..." This is a small church with no Wikipedia article, and only two images on Commons. --ELEKHHT14:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Elekhh, thanks for your interest. The second image in that category is to a great extent obscured by bushes and that info plate is not at all readable, and unimportant anyway. The image is a very poorly described, and where you recognize the better lighting is quite doubtful to me, too. The other image you mention, is not a Wikimedia image, hence it does nor play a role here at all. Besides, it is tilted and distorted. As far as the importance is concerned, you may not have recognized the link to the history of that church. Its history does not make it a cathedral, but being the only one within a range of quite a few kilometers, it is important for that part of the island. Besides, many of "valued" churches, if not the majority, don't have an own wiki article. Regards --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
