Commons:Valued image candidates/San Trovaso (Venice) - Tentazioni di Sant'Antonio (1577 circa) di Jacopo Tintoretto.jpg

San Trovaso (Venice) - Tentazioni di Sant'Antonio (1577 circa) di Jacopo Tintoretto.jpg

withdrawn

Image
Nominated by	Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-01-15 06:01 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: The Temptation of St Anthony by Jacopo Tintoretto in San Trovaso (Venice)
Used in	Global usage
Review (criteria)	Oppose After careful review, I think there is not a single "best" image of this painting available on Commons at the moment, they all have their individual strengths and weaknesses. This one here probably captures the upper part of the painting best, but the lower half (especially the person lying in the bottom right corner) has barely any detail. I'm not sure whether this is due to the exposure, the heavy noise, reflected light or maybe even the painting having deteriorated during the last few years, but File:Jacopo Tintoretto - The Temptation of St Anthony - WGA22617.jpg captures that part much better. That one is pretty dark at the top, though, so I think it would be best not to choose a VI for this painting at the moment. --El Grafo (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)  Comment The paintings in this church are sometimes very damaged. Here natural lighting shows the weft of the canvas that very ugly way. It will take a flash or a triopod. We do not have the right to do it. It is a good chalange I will try. I'm still running fast enough to run away after the flash. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)  Comment Flash would probably lead to even more ugly reflections. I suspect uneven lighting might be a problem here, so maybe merging two or three different exposures HDR-style could help – with good software that might even work with hand-held shots. --El Grafo (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC) It's already done, the camera was programmed to make three images in HDR is the result that you see. But there is a sport in the lower right corner of the table added this year that gives this calm lighting. I will find a way. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

How to review an image

Any registered user can review the valued image candidates. Comments are welcome from everyone, but neither the nominator nor the original image author may vote (that does not exclude voting from users who have edited the image with a view to improving it).

Nominations should be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. Please read those and the page on scope carefully before reviewing. Reviewing here is a serious business, and a reviewer who just breezes by to say "I like it!" is not adding anything of value. You need to spend the time to check the nomination against every one of the six VI criteria, and you also need to carry out searches to satisfy yourself on the "most valuable" criterion.

Review procedure

• On the review page the image is presented in the review size. You are welcome to view the image in full resolution by following the image links, but bear in mind that it is the appearance of the image at review size which matters.
• Check the candidate carefully against each of the six VI criteria. The criteria are mandatory, and to succeed the candidate has to satisfy all six.
• Use the where used field, if provided, to study the current usage of the candidate in Wikimedia projects. If you find usage of interest do add relevant links to the nomination.
• Look for other images of the same kind of subject by following the links to relevant categories in the image page, and to any Commons galleries.
  • If you find another image which is already a VI within essentially the same scope, the candidate and the existing VI should be moved to Most Valued Review (MVR) to determine which one is the more valued.
  • If you find one or more other images which in your opinion are equally or more valued images within essentially the same scope, you should nominate these images as well and move all the candidates to an MVR.
• Once you have made up your mind, edit the review page and add your vote or comment to the review parameter as follows:

You type	You get	When
*{{Comment}} My Comment. -- ~~~~	Comment My comment. -- Example	You have a comment.
*{{Info}} My information. -- ~~~~	Info My information. -- Example	You have information.
*{{Neutral}} Reason for neutral vote. -- ~~~~	Neutral Reason for neutral vote. -- Example	You are uncertain or wish to record a neutral vote.
*{{Oppose}} Reason for opposing vote. -- ~~~~	Oppose Reason for opposing vote. -- Example	You think that the candidate fails one or more of the six mandatory criteria.
*{{Question}} My question. -- ~~~~	Question My question. -- Example	You have a question.
*{{Support}} Reason for supporting. -- ~~~~	Support Reason for supporting. -- Example	You think that the candidate meets all of the six mandatory criteria.

• If the nomination fails one of the six criteria, but in a way that can be fixed, you can optionally let the nominator know what needs to be done using the {{VIF}} template.

• Your comment goes immediately before the final closing braces "}}" on the page.

How to update the status

• Finally, change the status of the nomination if appropriate:
  • status=nominated When no votes or only neutral votes have been added to the review field (blue image border).
  • status=supported When there is at least one {{Support}} vote but no {{Oppose}} votes (light green image border).
  • status=opposed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote but no {{Support}} votes (red image border).
  • status=discussed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote and one {{Support}} vote (yellow image border).

Remember the criteria: 1. Most valuable 2. Suitable scope 3. Illustrates well 4. Fully described 5. Geocoded 6. Well categorized.

Changes in scope during the review period

The nominator is allowed to make changes in scope as the review proceeds, for example in response to reviewer votes or comments. Whenever a scope is changed the nominator should post a signed comment at the bottom of the review area using {{VIC-scope-change|old scope|new scope|--~~~~}}, and should also leave a note on the talk page of all existing voters asking them to reconsider their vote. A support vote made before the change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn.