Commons:Valued image candidates/Weathervane angel. Campanile of St. Mark's Basilica, Venice.jpg

Weathervane angel. Campanile of St. Mark's Basilica, Venice.jpg

declined

Image
Nominated by	Ввласенко (talk) on 2022-01-16 06:56 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Weathervane angel at Campanile of St. Mark's Basilica, Venice
Used in	Global usage
Review (criteria)	Comment There is already a promoted image for this scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)  Comment Sorry that I didn't notice it. It seemed to me that my version have a more expressive angle. -- Ввласенко (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Therefore Ввласенко should definitely add "Venice" to the scope, but above all from which direction he took the photo, for example "view from ...". In my opinion it is a better image than the promoted one. Best regards -- Spurzem (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)  Comment Thank you for opinion, Spurzem. I added "Venice". The photo was taken directly from Piazzetta di San Marco (geo coordinates), like all the photos in this scope. Keep in mind that the angel is weathervane, so a photo can be taken from anywhere point of the Piazzetta. -- Ввласенко (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC) Then you can perhaps add: "right side of the statue". My intention is that we can have a second VI of this object. -- Spurzem (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)  Comment Make changes is not difficult, but I would like to know the opinions of colleagues. The collision takes us beyond the framework of this scope and gives us reason to think about the future. Over time, modern VI will be replaced by the best, and those, in turn, too. Perhaps, in order not to multiply the scopes with similar images, one should consider the possibility of preserving the VI sign for the previous images, indicating the time of its validity. The process of improving VI will be clearly visible. -- Ввласенко (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)  Comment This image is better than the previous one and I am in favor of moving to Pending Most valued review candidates. But the procedure is very time-consuming and it would be useful for one of us to take care of it in the future. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)  Comment It is indeed time-consuming, but this nomination can't stand if it's in the same scope as an existing VI. Shall we decline this nomination? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Time-consuming, or not, it may be promoted, but it has to go through MVR first. --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC) Result: 0 support, 1 oppose => declined. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:15, 25 January 2022 (UTC)