Commons:Valued image candidates/Paolo Monti - Serie fotografica (Verbania, 1962) - BEIC 6337023.jpg

Paolo Monti - Serie fotografica (Verbania, 1962) - BEIC 6337023.jpg

undecided

Image
Nominated by	Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) on 2016-04-10 13:12 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Historical photos of the Fontana dei putti
Used in	Global usage
Reason	Almost the only historical photo of villa Taranto, one of the most important botanical gardens of Italy. -- Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk)
Review (criteria)	Mmmmh. Some comments: 1) Not sure if it really fits the scope. I'd expect something like a wide-angle shot of the area, not just a fountain. 2) Geocoding is missing. Should be quite easy to at least add {{Object location}}. 3) 1,235 × 1,280 pixels seems pretty small for a scan from a 6×6 slide (not really an issue for VIC, though). 4) The whole thing looks very purple. I'd guess that either something went wrong during the digitizig process, or the original has deteriorated quite a bit over time. Don't really feel like supporting this at the moment. --El Grafo (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)  Comment I corrected the scanning errors. For the scope just give the name of the fountain (my memory it has one) and year. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC) Scope changed from Historical photos of villa Taranto to Historical photos of the Fontana dei putti --El Grafo (talk) 10:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC) 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a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".  Info created a new category with the name of the fountain, as there seems to be at least on other fountain in the gardens. Also added geocoding. Added {{Location estimated}} just for the record, I'm pretty sure the location is correct. --El Grafo (talk) 10:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)  Support now, but since I've been involved quite a bit, I'm setting this to discussed for further opinions. Pinging Archaeodontosaurus (thanks for the color correction!). --El Grafo (talk) 10:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)  Oppose Sorry, I hate to decline nominations, but in this case I can't see any value in a scan of a weak old picture with unnatural colours (let alone the strange frame), if the motif itself hasn't changed over the decades. I'd appreciate further opinions on the matter. --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC) What do you mean by weak? The photo was clearly shot in better conditions than the others in the category, as it benefits from better blossoming. Federico Leva (BEIC) (talk) 20:01, 18 April 2016 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 1 oppose => undecided. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)