Review
(criteria) |
 Oppose Per 3 (1) Criterium. IMO, this image does not illustrate well the subject, because of strong lack of minimum quality. I agree it is a matter of taste.--Jebulon (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment If we ignore the matter of taste. In what way this image does not illustrate well the subject? Some grains yes, but a good composition and natural colors (no flash). In my opinion, the picture is illustrative enough to deserve VI.
- Reasonable sharpness, lighting, composition, and angle of view (yes IMO)
- No distracting, irrelevant elements (this can be mitigated if it is hard to re-establish the scenario) (yes IMO)
- The image must look good on-screen at the review size (e.g. 480x360 pixels for a standard 4:3 landscape image). Its usability in printed format is not considered. (Dont see the problem here, even very good at 480x360). Regards--Ankara (talk) 11:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Quality slightly improved. The question is would you recognize her from this picture? If yes (I think so) then you should support IMO. W.S. 13:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThere's still the issue of relevance. The person is present in only one Wikipedia, and that's only a short bibliography. --Ikar.us (talk) 15:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment She has published three books at en:Bonnier Group. Bonnier is the largest and most important publishing company in Sweden (and Scandinavia). She is important enough to be invited as guest to en:Eurocon. Even translated into Danish.--Ankara (talk) 15:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Quality is fine for VI, I think. VI was started to recognize useful pictures that don't meet the criteria of QI or FPC. I'm concerned that the picture illustrates only one article, sv: Lotta Olivecrona and that article has only one secondary source. I think the scope may be too narrow; "science fiction writers from Sweden" may satisfy the criteria of COM:VIS better. It would be a useful category, also. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And why should she (and no other author) illustrate the scoop "science fiction writers from Sweden"? If we imagined that she was American or French, and had published three books on the most prominent American/French publisher, had she been relevant then? Even if she just had an article in French, or English Wikipedia. It's an honest question, I usually do not nominate pictures here.--Ankara (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I think an American or French writer with a similar biographical article would be treated similarly. She receives little mention on svwiki.[1]. She is not found in a search of dkwiki.[2] I don't think I'm guilty of cultural chauvinism unless the svwiki and dkwiki editors share my bias. On the other hand, Google Scholar finds a number of medical research papers authored by her.[3] While they are mostly primary sources, they could be used to expand the svwiki article. I'm still a bit dubious. But, mindful of earlier admonishments not to be too picky about scopes, I will support this image. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing personal here against this lady, but then, if I understand well, at the end, are we going to promote a (very) bad picture of an (almost) unknown person ?... --Jebulon (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Very bad" and "an (almost) unknown person" is hardly correct. Unnecessary excesses.--Ankara (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jebulon, we participated in a related discussion wherein I was criticized for being too picky about scopes.[4] I'm trying to be mindful of that. But the quality meets the relevant VI criterion, in my opinion. "The image must look good on-screen at the review size." (COM:VIC 3.3). --Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry but if you think that the quality here meets the relevant criterium, I think different (matter of taste). There is no offense, only a debate. About the fact if this lady is known enough to deserve a scope, I just summarized in few words (maybe excessive, sorry) the discussion above. I think that my question, deliberately shortly-provocative is not completely "out of scope" ;). But, another time, as I wrote elsewhere, It will not be a scandal for me if this picture get the VI label at the end of this evaluation process. And I'm interested to learn and know more about Mrs Olivecrona and her works.--Jebulon (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand the repeated mention of the biggest publisher in Sweden. Being big means they publish many things. This doesn't indicate that being published by them indicates relevance of the author. Nor do I understand the mentioning of "Eurocon". She's not listed among the "guests of honour". --Ikar.us (talk) 19:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- there is a difference between being published on an unknown, small publisher and being published on the biggest (and most prominent) publisher. The picture shows her at Eurocon.--Ankara (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
