Commons:Valued image candidates/Miracle cannon.jpg/Archive of previous reviews
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
|review=
Comment not an example if the other two cannon are not relevant. Charles (talk) 13:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Info @Charlesjsharp: I do not understand the comment. Please rephrase. Martinvl (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- I think he means that a photo of the three cannons is not a good way to illustrate one cannon, so he may not have quite understood the intention of the photo. For myself, I get the idea, but I think the scope should be modified to include something about the specific cannons.--Peulle (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- To be valuable, the image must depict the scope and I don't think this one does. Google 'sacrificial anode' and you'll see what I mean. Charles (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- The smaller corroded canon is the state in which one would have expected to find the larger canon, but this was not the case. There was no record at the exhibition as to the origin of the smaller canon, so I can only postulate that it too was recovered from the seabed. Martinvl (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- We understand that, but the scope should contain something about the cannon as well.--Peulle (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- The smaller corroded canon is the state in which one would have expected to find the larger canon, but this was not the case. There was no record at the exhibition as to the origin of the smaller canon, so I can only postulate that it too was recovered from the seabed. Martinvl (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
- To be valuable, the image must depict the scope and I don't think this one does. Google 'sacrificial anode' and you'll see what I mean. Charles (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- The page Commons:Valued image scope contains the text "Note that scope is not a simple description of your image. Rather, it defines a generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example." In the image above, the canon itself is unimportant, what is important is the fact that the bronze was not corroded. If the scope were to be altered to read "Example of the preservation of a bronze artifact in seawater after the use of iron artifact as a sacrifical anode". Martinvl (talk) 19:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
