Commons:Valued image candidates/Walter Sisulu National Botanical Garden Sundial.jpg

Walter Sisulu National Botanical Garden Sundial.jpg

declined

Image
Nominated by	Martinvl (talk) on 2016-11-14 17:59 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Mandatory scope parameter missing in VIC template.
Used in	Global usage
Reason	I believe that this image shows the workings of an equitorial sundial better than any other image in Commons (in particular the shadow can be clearly seen). In addition the accompanying text clearly identifies the sundial's latitude, a factor that is important in its design. -- Martinvl (talk)
Review (criteria)	Comment, I think the scope is way too wide. We need to allow room for the variety and richness in equatorial sundial design and not limit ourselves to just this one. Something like "Equatorial sundial in the Walter Sisulu National Botanical Garden" would be more appropriate for this image. DeFacto (talk). 19:22, 14 November 2016 (UTC)  Info @DeFacto: If you visit the Valued image scope page you will see the text "Think of scope as being akin to a Commons Category, or to the generic title of a Gallery page." In this case, the scope maps exactly onto one of the Commons Categories of which is it is a member and as such matches the VI rules perfectly. Martinvl (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2016 (UTC)  Comment, the category contains hundreds of images of a variety of designs and sizes of equatorial sundials and so it is impossible to objectively compare the nominated image as simply an "Equatorial sundial" with even this small selection of what is in there: I think we should narrow the scope to the specific sundial to allow for the rich variety available to be properly represented too. DeFacto (talk). 07:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC) @DeFacto: I disagree. If you read the page Commons:Valued images you will see the text Valued images, on the other hand, are those that are the most valuable of their kind for use in an online context, within other Wikimedia projects. At the moment the English Wikipedia has a single article on 'all sundials so there is scope possibly for one VI on equitorial sundials. Martinvl (talk) 08:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)  Oppose: regrettably, I must oppose then, because I believe the scope is very much too broad. DeFacto (talk). 07:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC) Result: 0 support, 1 oppose => declined. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)