Review
(criteria) |
- Thank you for your review and vote. Agree that the image shows litlle of the mont. I changed the scope. I cannot agree that the chapel is not notable enough for a VI. It was built in 1672 and The top of Chapel of Saint-Michel is the highest point in Brittany.[1]. Besides the Chapel of Saint-Michel plays a major role in Celtic Mythology. For example one of the stories says that the Devil was angry when Mont St. Michel and the chapel were built, probably because he knew that Archangel Michael would be protecting the lost from entering the gates of hell at Elez Yeun just down below. The Devil told St Michael that Mont St. Michel was his, the Devil's, to reside in. Not surprisingly, St. Michael had a different opinion. To decide which one of them was going to keep the Mont, the Devil and St. Michael both agreed to a jumping competition. The Devil jumped and fell into a river, whereas St. Michael's wings carried him much farther away. In this way, St. Michael won the Mont for himself, except for the fact that the Devil still lives somewhere below the Mont.[2]. There are many more legends about the Chapel of Saint-Michel.Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I maintain my opposition and still think that this chapel is of very local interest. I am Breton myself and don't even know it (well, I grant you that's not a very good argument). There are legends about every single rock, fountain, chapel or old tree in Brittany and does not make them notable enough. It's not a definitive and objective sentence, it's personal opinion, but it seems very clear to me that the chapel by itself has nothing particularly notable. --Eusebius (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But what about that the top of Chapel of Saint-Michel is the highest point in Brittany? Isn't this fact alone makes this chapel one of the most notable places in Brittany? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not to me, because only the presence of the building makes this spot the highest point in Brittany (an antenna would have made it). The summit of the Monts d'Arrée, geologically speaking, is Roc'h Ruz (Mont Saint-Michel de Brasparts is at least fifth). --Eusebius (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: I've just learned that if you count buildings for the "highest point" contest, the Émetteur de Roc'h Trédudon wins (220m high pole on the top of a 383m hill). --Eusebius (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, looks like you're right and the Chapel of Saint-Michel is not the highest point in Brittany. I wish I knew about this earlier.... Still IMO the chapel that was built in such a strange place in 1672 deservs to be called notable. I see many people are interested in this place. IMO it will be nice, if they were able to find their answers on Commons VI. Anyway thank you for your research. Me and I hope you learned someting new in the process, and after all isn't this what Commons VI is about? I mean learning something new. Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I have only one vote, feel free to call for other opinions (you might need to sollicitate them, though). Of course I've learned new things, it's the fun part about this project... --Eusebius (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well IMO you are one of the most fair and the most thoughtful VI reviewers. Besides you are Breton. If I could not make my case to you, it means I failed as the image nominator. So, no, I am not going to to sollicitate anybody, yet, If I may I would like to mention that this site calls the mont and the chapel "a Mecca for Celtic culture". Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(indent reset) Please don't be like that, as I said this opposition is based on one personal opinion, and the fact that I know the region is somewhat irrelevant. I'm sure several reviewers would be happy to question my vote! I have made further research about this candidate. From what I have read, the spot is notable and impressive (well, if this 381m hill was in the Alps, it would be less impressive I guess), but very few is said about the chapel, the most significant fact being the place where it was built (if I summarize the document about the chapel made by the regional public office for heritage preservation). More fun stuff about the site though: I've learned that it's very close to the former Brennilis nuclear plant. This makes it one of the most radioactive spots of the country, and not only because the Breton ground is naturally radioactive: I remember that some of the low-radiation waste from the plant was not properly processed at the time, but simply buried there. If Herby grows a third eye, he can blame us! --Eusebius (talk) 13:38, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was going to go there one day, but now I will not. I do not want to have a third eye :)--Mbz1 (talk) 21:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking more about the oppose reason, and I came to the conclusion that I still cannot agree with it. We promoted such images as cheating, quite a few images that are not used in any articles. This image is of an ancient chapel built in a very, very unusual place, and the image is used in two articles.Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
|
