Review
(criteria) |
 Support The best for this scope. Could you add the heading of the geolocalisation? Yann (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done  Comment The photo was taken from a "Bateau Mouche" on the River Seine.
 Oppose- Comment: As there are various statues in Paris, I restrict the scope now on the Statue of the Île des Cygnes (the most renowned and most photographed Statue of Liberty in Paris). --Llez (talk) 06:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Agree with this explanation/restriction. Best in new scope now, opposition removed.--Jebulon (talk) 09:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Question What makes it recognizable from another version in another place, in this view? --Myrabella (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Each statue has another pedestal. --Llez (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that all? It looks like one has golden flame and letters, while the other yellow flame and uncoloured letters. And like one has the head turned and the other straight - or does it depend on perspective? --Ikar.us (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Scope looks comvoluted. Statue of Liberty on Île des Cygnes (Paris) or Statue of Liberty (Île des Cygnes, Paris) would be a better order. --Ikar.us (talk) 20:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There exists a catogory on commons "Statue of Liberty (Paris)" in which all the pictures of this statue are listet. So this category seemed a good scope to me and it should be left. The addition "Île des Cygnes" refers to a single statue out of three in Paris and defines it well IMO. Otherwise one should create a new category and tansfer all the pictures of the statue of the Île des Cygnes into this new category. But makes it sense? --Llez (talk) 21:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- For three different statues, three different categories are appropriate. And the scope doesn't need to have the same wording as the category to which it's linked. Categories may change anyway, the scope is forever. --Ikar.us (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please notice that the texts on the plaque hold by the Lady are different: Here we may read : 4 juillet 1776 = 14 juillet 1789 (in gold letters). In New York we have :IV july MDCCLXXVI (in relief), and in Jardin du Luxembourg we have 15 de novembre 1889 (sculpted).--Jebulon (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Because of the scope wording and of the categorization to be improved. I think the scope should be precised in "Replica of the Statue of Liberty , Île des Cygnes, Paris" or something like that, with a link to a specific category to be created. It is important to say that it is a replica in the scope IMO. There are many all around the world (see en:Replicas of the Statue of Liberty; fr:Répliques de la Statue de la Liberté). --Myrabella (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Most readers will recognize that a Statue of Liberty located not in New York isn't the original. And if we assume readers without previous knowledge about "the" statue, we would have to be even more precise: Replica of the Statue of Liberty (New York, USA), located in ....
- And is an exemplar located in Paris and made by the original sculptor a simple replica, or could it be regarded as a second instance of his idea?
- So to avoid redundance as well as interpretation, I'd drop the "replica" part. --Ikar.us (talk) 20:59, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Info Thanks for all contributions and comments. I've learned a lot about the Statues within the last days! --Llez (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
