Review
(criteria) |
 Support. Useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply] Comment @Palauenc05: cc: @Spurzem: IMHO the image is VI but your scope is too loose. A ship picture is about the ship and the VI scope should reflect that. The type of ship and additional location information (already found in the image description) is not needed in the scope.- I would suggest a better scope would be one that matches the linked category for the ship that you provided, with the corresponding VI scope claim being that this image is the most valuable for a ship with this name in Commons. If it was a plant or an animal image (of which there are several on this page), it would be like claiming that the image is the most valuable for a given species, or sub-species.
scope=Cres (ship, 2005)
- As it is possible to have more than one ship of a given name built in a given year, if you want to be even more explicit, you could add the unique IMO hull number as a further descriptor. That would work too.
scope=Cres (ship, 2005) - IMO 9334741
--GRDN711 (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having no response to previous comment,  Oppose with regret per COM:VIC to change status to discussed. --GRDN711 (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC) Support With the latest change in scope, I support the nomination. --GRDN711 (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]- Comment Thanks for your regret. I'm quite sure, there is only one ship called "Cres" that works as a ferry between Prizna and Žigljen. But how can you be sure, there is only one "Cres" built in 2005? Consequently, the scope as I put it, is more exact than your proposal. --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It would be good to put the code IMHO in the scope, but it's execive to vote down if it's not there. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Palauenc05: cc: @Spurzem: @Archaeodontosaurus:
- Let’s start with my negative. To be nice and collegial, I raised as a comment what I felt was a valid issue with the scope and nothing happened for three days... I vote negative in keeping with COM:VIC; the nomination status changes from “supported” to “discussed” and there were two responses within 24 hours… (Maybe I should vote negative early and often… 😊)
- Let me be clear. I support a VI rating for this image but just not with the scope as written.
- Let’s take a plant analogy as everyone seems to be comfortable with it. Why is a suitable VI scope for a plant something like “Berberis aquifolium (Oregon grape) - inflorecences and buds” (species name, common name, specific plant feature)? Because over the years, Commons will gain uploads of a large number of plant images, and this is the only rational way to categorize a plant. The VI claim becomes that this is the most valuable image in Commons for this unique plant species (or sub-species) with a less unique common name and sub-category plant feature (if there are enough images).
- IMHO, the scope of "Cres, ferry between Prizna and Žigljen, Croatia” is too loose and not sufficiently definitive. This same ferry was on a route between Krk and the island of Cres for some time. Is the location important or unique to its value? You could write a similar scope for all 4 other images in the Cres ship category. Are they all VI? - I personally don’t think so.
- As a minimum, if you define the scope for this image as “scope=Cres (ship, 2005)” with linked category, the VI claim becomes that this is the most valuable image in Commons for a ship with this name, eliminating the other 4 images. It’s like being the most valuable image for the common name of a plant.
- The way to address the issue that Palauenc05 raises on uniqueness of the ship name, is to add the IMO number. Similar to the Latin species (sub-species) name of a plant, the IMO hull number is unique to just that ship, no matter what name it may be given over time.
- My personal scope recommendation is “scope=Cres (ship, 2005) - IMO 9334741” (common ship name, unique hull number) with the corresponding VI claim that this is the most valuable image in Commons of this unique ship with this name. It's all about the ship. --GRDN711 (talk) 08:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @GRDN711: Being in Croatia at the moment, I'm not keen to react immediately to each comment. "Maybe I should vote negative early and often…" even if this is meant ironically, there seems to be some truth in it. So just go ahead and oppose serious nominations. Archaeo shows you how to treat colleagues politely. He supports the nomination by adding a hint. That's why I change the scope, otherwise I wouldn't. It's all a matter of style. --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hello @Palauenc05: Let me be clear. I did view your ship image as a serious VI nomination linked to a proper ship sub-category. Unfortunately, IMHO, it also had a scope problem of being too broad and descriptive. VI scopes are about more than style. Please see my comment below to Spurzem. --GRDN711 (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @GRDN711: I don't understand the insistence on the superlative. Why should or must a photo presented here for evaluation be the "most valuable" in the Commons? I think there can be many valuable images of the same subject. Best regards -- Spurzem (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hello @Spurzem: To be VI, an image must be superlative within a well-defined scope. I think COM:VIC states it well - “Single images can be proposed for valued image (VI) status. Candidates must be proposed as being the most valuable of all Commons' images within a specified scope. Judging is carried out according to the valued image criteria.”
- There can be more than one valued image of a subject provided the scopes are distinctly different. Per COM:VIS, if the scopes are essentially the same, both images go to MVR to resolve which is the best valued image for that scope.
- Choosing a scope (not too narrow; not too broad; just right) can be tricky and there is also the issue of the linked category for the scope.
- Per COM:VIS, “By nominating an image for VI status you are stating that, in your view, the image is more valuable than any other on Commons within the generic scope you have specified. Note that scope is not a simple description of your image. Rather, it defines a generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example.”
- "Cres, ferry between Prizna and Žigljen, Croatia” is an overly broad description of this ship image. Scope=Cres (ship, 2005) - IMO 9334741, linked to the ship sub-category, is a precise claim that this is the most valuable image of this unique ship in Commons.
- Per COM:VIS, there are domain-specific scope guidelines for animals, plants, buildings, works of art and natural sites. Is the VI collective ready to define a domain-specific guideline for ships? I think this would be helpful. --GRDN711 (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|
