Commons:Valued image candidates/Table échiquier - 134.jpg/Archive of previous reviews

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
I changed the scope.--Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 21:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment. First of all the picture could be a bit sharper (where in this picture is the focus???), but in review resulotion it is useful. Thanks for changing the scope, but in which park is this photo taken? Would u more specify that scope once again it would be much better to get a result of this nomination..... Here are the reasonsː The pic shows only some trees (not in whole) and some green spots in the background (unsharp) and the ground isn't like green on most of the others pics of tables in parks (with gras), that could be better for a chesstable in a park. But it is the best pic in this scope IMO, reasonː the contrast of the black and white blocks of the chesstable (no other pics shows it like this here in a park). If noone gives a second or third Opinion i will set this in 3 days to "supported", cause its a matter of taste in this scope (park isn't specificated at all, means which park they stay) the other best candidates could be this, but this one hasn't the contrast of the black and white blocks like the discussed pic here and this but it's not well croped (doesn't shows the first table in whole and the second is to far away to get detailed information in review resolution). --Dr. Chriss (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Editː The scope is Tables so plural and u can see here only one table. --Dr. Chriss (talk) 16:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info please set the scope to this (but not big and cursive): 'Chess table, in the park 'de la Tête d'Or', in Lyon, France' (I think de la Tête d'Or is the name of the park). Reasonː It has to be understandable for every guy (English) and the scope is 'Chess Table' and the location is only an addition (comparisonː should be uniform like on any other nomination here. Scope and then addition like 'from the West' or anything like that). If u copy the source code to the scope u will get a support, thanks mateǃ --Dr. Chriss (talk) 18:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Good fro me. Just make a link in the caption to the section of the park that everyone can understand. We must take more care for captions! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that for an English, it might seem like a bad translation. Thank you for your change to the file.--Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 09:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr. Chriss: No worries ; Thank you.--Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 01:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment @Jebulon: u are right, its very specific (actuall scope) but u can not choose only 'Chess Table' that would be to general, so my proposal was to specify the scope by bringing the place in which park this photo was made into the scope. So please explain yourself and your point of view, thanks. --Dr. Chriss (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry if I was not clear. My concern is not about the scope, but about the object itself. I don't think this banal, ordinary object is valuable enough to deserve a "scope", (and therefore a VI, of course). When we'll have a category with plenty of pictures of this (and similars, but not others) object, and a real choice possible, I'll probably change my mind, but not for now.--Jebulon (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment In my view a good scope would be "Chess table in a park". I believe that this is broad enough to deserve a scope in its own right, but not so broad as to exclude say indoor chess tables. It is also not so narrow as to allow every park that has a chess board to become a VI. Martinvl (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info why to broad? Can u explain yourself. First it was too generall and now to broad? If we would do a nomination of erver Chess Table in parks world wide, we would have more than 1000000 VI of these subjects. --Dr. Chriss (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment The answer is contained in your question. You have to give the place in the scope.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment like it was befor? .... --Dr. Chriss (talk) 15:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment Usually I agree with the opinion of archaeodontosaurus, but now I think that indeed take into account the accuracy of the park does not seem to be the right solution.--Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 17:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I checked what a VI is. The final sentence ended with ... and about the usability of the information on the image page. Looking at this image, I think that very few people would be that interested in a chess table at parc de la Tête d'Or, but a number of people might well be interested in chess tables at parks in general. Martinvl (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 2 support, 2 oppose =>
undecided. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Table_échiquier_-_134.jpg/Archive_of_previous_reviews&oldid=182379136"