Review
(criteria) |
 Oppose as not yet eligible for VI status. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it cannot at present become a valued image since it currently fails valued image criterion 5 (should be geocoded, but is not). "All images are expected to be geocoded unless it would not be appropriate to do so". I have not reviewed the nomination against all the criteria, but if you are able to fix this issue and would like me to re-evaluate the image please leave me a message on my talk page. -Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 17:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
- The criteria is extremely clear: All images are expected to be geocoded unless it would not be appropriate to do so. The picture was taken in a private home and is a obvious case of non-place-related shots and in criterion 5 Exceptions include: studio and other non-place-related shots. Also: Where an exact location needs to be avoided, some coarse location data (e.g., regional) should normally be provided in the description field. There is a geographic description of where the berries are coming from. Keep in mind that Commons is a collaborative project, and tell me what is missing instead of sending a nonsense messag! What is lacking is not included in the criterion.--Ankara (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Now there's an explanation on the picture page on why the image is not geocoded. Anyway, it is unfortunate that there is no information in the criteria that you have to justify why the image is not geocoded. The link provided above does not contain the information, which is frustrating because it is not clear what you have done wrong. This is in my opinion, an obvious case.--Ankara (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem was solved - I remove my vote. Sorry if my comment was not clear enough (although I believe it was) --Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 17:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I find it difficult to identify without ambiguity. May I suggest, if it is possible, to re-shot it with a specimen of the fruit nearby? --Myrabella (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentIt is too late in the season for fresh berries. Possibly you can buy frozen. But I'm not sure I understand your point, the photo should show a typical example of cloudberry jam. A fresh berries adds nothing of value for that purpose.--Ankara (talk) 20:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As for me, I prefer images of jam with fruits (example). More seriously, it could add value for users who didn't know what cloudberries are ('plaquebière' in French, as I've learnt tonight). --Myrabella (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Please take care: Myrabella is the champion about cooking, cheese, oysters, and so on... I like this example of Myrabella's jam, very funny !!! By the way, many thanks for the translation, Myrabella, I really didn't know what cloudberries could be... Well, 'plaquebière' ?... Hm...first time I hear this word... What kind of berry is it ?--Jebulon (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To return to the criteria for VI:
- 1. Is the most valuable illustration of its kind on Wikimedia Commons.
Yes. (Better than File: Moroshka.JPG)
- 2. Is nominated as being the most valuable within a suitably generic scope
Cloudberry is certainly not the world's most famous bear. But it has had an important historical role in northern Scandinavia and other northern parts of the world. Mainly because of the high content of vitamin C.
- 3. Must illustrate its subject well.
Yes. it is not a valid ground of opposition that it would be easy to create a better one. A VI is the best available image of its type on Commons, not the best that can be conceived of. It would perhaps be more educational to include a fresh berries, but the picture gives a good picture of cloudberry jam and have a decent quality.
- 4. Is fully described on the image page.
Yes.
- 5. Is geocoded, when relevant.
See above
- 6. Is well categorized at an appropriate level.
Yes.
--Ankara (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
