Commons:Valued image candidates/Vezelay WLM2016 La basilique Sainte-Marie-Madeleine (35).jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Vezelay WLM2016 La basilique Sainte-Marie-Madeleine (35).jpg

declined
Image
Nominated by --Pierre André (talk) 10:12, 26 December 2016 (UTC) on 2016-12-26 10:12 (UTC)[reply]
Scope Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
West facade of Vézelay Vézelay Abbey view East
Used in Global usage
Review
(criteria)
  •  Oppose - Good effort, but I think File:Vezelay-7776-Bearbeitet.jpg is the most useful photo in this scope (in which case, should I nominate it now?). It's brighter and has way fewer extraneous things (stone blocks, people) between the viewer and the basilica's facade. Better crop above the tower, too, as there's more space above the spire. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment OK! I posted this picture with hikers, because this cathedral is one of the must-see sites, to get to Santiago de Compostela. Moreover it does not appear in any category of good images, which explains my proposal. For information the stones are laid for safety and to avoid terrorist attacks. I have also download this other versions:
    Best regard.---Pierre André (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - Right, but that image is a different view. Of course I understand that the basilica is a traditional place of pilgrimage and why the stones are there, but the point of VI is to judge the representation of the scope laid out, and the people and anti-terrorism stones are irrelevant to and a distraction from the scope you've laid out. Think in terms of encyclopedic precision on VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 I withdraw my nomination Thank you Ikan Kekek for your clarification ... this image is better File:Vezelay-7776-Bearbeitet.jpg. Best regard.--Pierre André (talk) 21:04, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 0 support, 1 oppose =>
declined. lNeverCry 01:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
[reply]