Commons:Valued image candidates/Austin 10 Lichfield, Jurby Transport Museum (geograph 5067039).jpg

Austin 10 Lichfield, Jurby Transport Museum (geograph 5067039).jpg

withdrawn

Image
Nominated by	BoothSift on 2019-05-21 05:40 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Austin 10 on display at Jurby Transport Museum
Used in	Global usage
Review (criteria)	Oppose We have much better pictures of this car, but without a police sign on the roof. Very disturbing is the plate with the description of the vehicle; you could have replaced it for the moment when taking the photo. And the image file seems too small. For me it is no VI. @Spurzem: You clearly didn't see the second half--BoothSift 23:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)  Comment The scope is limited to the specimen of the museum which has a real specificity (Police). As a personal I regret the definition too low that does not read the explanation of the panel. If it were used I could vote favorably. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:29, 22 May 2019 (UTC) @Archaeodontosaurus:  Done --BoothSift 06:05, 22 May 2019 (UTC)  Support - Useful, apparently unique in scope. Being already used in an article is not a requirement for a supporting vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:46, 22 May 2019 (UTC)  Support Perfect now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC) @Archaeodontosaurus: , @Ikan Kekek: , @Boothsift: I still do not understand the value of this photo, which makes it worthy of a mark. It is also unclear to me which half of the picture I should have overlooked, which makes it significant. What still bothers me considerably, however, is the unreadable information board in front of the car. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2019 (UTC) @Spurzem: I meant the scope. This isn't about the car, it is that the car is ON DISPLAY AT THAT MUSEUM. Please read the scope and Archaeodontosaurus. I know that there is a sign there. This is about the car being displayed at a specific museum, not the car.--BoothSift 23:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC) @Boothsift: I begin to understand: The picture should convey an impression of the museum and the illegible information board is one of the essential picture elements. Is that right? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 07:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC) @Spurzem: Yes. The scope is the exhibit at the museum, therefore the information board is essential. --BoothSift 22:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC) Well. So an image is prized as valuable, because in front of an old car an unreadable information board can be seen. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 06:34, 24 May 2019 (UTC) @Spurzem: You clearly are missing the point of VI. Please read the guidelines before voting, there is no point in explaining when you simply can't understand. How many people told you that the sign does not matter because it is part of the exhibit? How many times did people tell you that the scope is the exhibit, not the car? How many times did people tell you that a VI is the most valuable image in a specific scope? Please cross out your vote as it makes no sense--BoothSift 06:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC) I accept that according to the rules of the game here a clever formulation of the scopes is more important than the image or even the quality of an image. But that does not change my opinion about a photo with an unreadable information board. Sorry. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 06:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC) @Spurzem: Yes, but the image is not "Information board of Austin 10 displayed at Jurby Transport Museum" is it? It is only part of the exhibit, but is not included in the scope. Nor the fire truck. I don't know what is so hard for you to understand, is it due to language difficulties? Or why you care so much about the info board when two others do not care as much since they get the scope? --BoothSift 07:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)  Oppose Actually Lothar Spurzem is right. I don't think this is sufficient different for another display of the car that it needs a separate scope. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)  I withdraw my nomination--BoothSift 18:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC) Result: 2 support, 2 oppose => undecided. --BoothSift 18:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

How to review an image

Any registered user can review the valued image candidates. Comments are welcome from everyone, but neither the nominator nor the original image author may vote (that does not exclude voting from users who have edited the image with a view to improving it).

Nominations should be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. Please read those and the page on scope carefully before reviewing. Reviewing here is a serious business, and a reviewer who just breezes by to say "I like it!" is not adding anything of value. You need to spend the time to check the nomination against every one of the six VI criteria, and you also need to carry out searches to satisfy yourself on the "most valuable" criterion.

Review procedure

• On the review page the image is presented in the review size. You are welcome to view the image in full resolution by following the image links, but bear in mind that it is the appearance of the image at review size which matters.
• Check the candidate carefully against each of the six VI criteria. The criteria are mandatory, and to succeed the candidate has to satisfy all six.
• Use the where used field, if provided, to study the current usage of the candidate in Wikimedia projects. If you find usage of interest do add relevant links to the nomination.
• Look for other images of the same kind of subject by following the links to relevant categories in the image page, and to any Commons galleries.
  • If you find another image which is already a VI within essentially the same scope, the candidate and the existing VI should be moved to Most Valued Review (MVR) to determine which one is the more valued.
  • If you find one or more other images which in your opinion are equally or more valued images within essentially the same scope, you should nominate these images as well and move all the candidates to an MVR.
• Once you have made up your mind, edit the review page and add your vote or comment to the review parameter as follows:

You type	You get	When
*{{Comment}} My Comment. -- ~~~~	Comment My comment. -- Example	You have a comment.
*{{Info}} My information. -- ~~~~	Info My information. -- Example	You have information.
*{{Neutral}} Reason for neutral vote. -- ~~~~	Neutral Reason for neutral vote. -- Example	You are uncertain or wish to record a neutral vote.
*{{Oppose}} Reason for opposing vote. -- ~~~~	Oppose Reason for opposing vote. -- Example	You think that the candidate fails one or more of the six mandatory criteria.
*{{Question}} My question. -- ~~~~	Question My question. -- Example	You have a question.
*{{Support}} Reason for supporting. -- ~~~~	Support Reason for supporting. -- Example	You think that the candidate meets all of the six mandatory criteria.

• If the nomination fails one of the six criteria, but in a way that can be fixed, you can optionally let the nominator know what needs to be done using the {{VIF}} template.

• Your comment goes immediately before the final closing braces "}}" on the page.

How to update the status

• Finally, change the status of the nomination if appropriate:
  • status=nominated When no votes or only neutral votes have been added to the review field (blue image border).
  • status=supported When there is at least one {{Support}} vote but no {{Oppose}} votes (light green image border).
  • status=opposed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote but no {{Support}} votes (red image border).
  • status=discussed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote and one {{Support}} vote (yellow image border).

Remember the criteria: 1. Most valuable 2. Suitable scope 3. Illustrates well 4. Fully described 5. Geocoded 6. Well categorized.

Changes in scope during the review period

The nominator is allowed to make changes in scope as the review proceeds, for example in response to reviewer votes or comments. Whenever a scope is changed the nominator should post a signed comment at the bottom of the review area using {{VIC-scope-change|old scope|new scope|--~~~~}}, and should also leave a note on the talk page of all existing voters asking them to reconsider their vote. A support vote made before the change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn.