Commons:Valued image candidates/Devi Jagadambi Temple, Khajuraho Group of Monuments, World Heritage Site (124)

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Devi Jagadambi Temple, Khajuraho Group of Monuments, World Heritage Site (124)

promoted to Valued image set: Sculptures of Devi Jagadambi Temple, Khajuraho
Images
Description

Sculptures of Devi Jagadambi Temple, Khajuraho Group of Monuments, World Heritage Site (124).

Nominated by Rajenver (talk) on 2012-03-25 13:00 (UTC)
Scope Nominated as the most valued set of images on Wikimedia Commons within the scope:
Sculptures of Devi Jagadambi Temple, Khajuraho Group of Monuments
Review
(criteria)
 Comment Very interesting topic. The scope should be: Devi Jagadambi Temple, Khajuraho. The number of photos should be reduced. Please, put the camera location on all image files. --MrPanyGoff 15:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I would prefer the set scope to be: „Sculptures of Devi Jagadambi Temple, Khajuraho” because we have excellent photo to be nominated for single image in VI project in the scope: „Devi Jagadambi Temple, Khajuraho”.--MrPanyGoff 15:41, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The scope is better now but really no need of this: „World Heritage Site (124)”. I think it should be removed here and from other nominations also. Don't change the title of the nomination page, we can only fix the scope name. I put the geotag of the Devi Jagadambi Temple on the first image, you can copy it on the other photos. I also put a geotag of the Lakshman Temple on the first image of its nomination.--MrPanyGoff 14:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Since we cannot show all the sculptures in a single set, I think we only should present the idea, the style, the philosophy... So we need no more than ten images. For now I suggest removing these photos: here, here, here and here.--MrPanyGoff 14:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Now the scope is well formulated. The reduced number of the photos is also good though I would like more of them to be removed. --MrPanyGoff 17:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- MrPanyGoff 18:46, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]