|
|
|
|
View promotion |
Nominated by:
Romanceor [parlons-en] on 2008-09-03 11:54 (UTC) |
Scope:
Jean-Claude Carrière |
Used in:
cf. WikiSense |
Oppose If you mention a location in the description, you have to geo-locate. Lycaon (talk) 12:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC) Issue resolved. Lycaon (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose 6th criterion --Eusebius (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 11:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support
=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
|
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
View promotion |
Nominated by:
User:Romanceor on 2008-11-30 17:42 (UTC) |
Scope:
André S. Labarthe |
Used in:
w:fr:André S. Labarthe, w:ja:アンドレ・S・ラバルト |
- Comment Please geotag it and fix the categories. --Eusebius (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support OK for me. I'm not sure a link to the French WP should be included, the current policy is to include links to the English WP. The link is likely to be modified when a multi-language feature is implemented for VI scopes, but I see no problem with it until then (since we don't have an English article about the guy). --Eusebius (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. --Eusebius (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
|
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC) |
|
|
View promotion |
Nominated by:
Romanceor[parlons-en] on 2009-05-23 20:39 (UTC) |
Scope:
Dubrovnik walls |
Used in:
cf. UsedIn Tool |
- Request You should fill in the date field in the information template in yyyy-mm-dd format. --Slaunger (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Something like that ? Romanceor[parlons-en] 20:05, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Almost, You did not have the dashes needed for standard internationalized date-time formatting. I've added it. Have you considered simplifying your signature, I mean 12 lines of text for a signature, isn't that overdoing it? --Slaunger (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Have new signature since yesterday. --Romanceor [parlons-en] 14:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the suggestion on-board! --Slaunger (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Support Well, there is a lot of competition in this category, there are two images, taken from further away, which perhaps better gives an overview of the Dubrovnik walls. However, they have horrible image quality. The quality and composition in the nominated images outweighs the perhaps slightly non-optimal viewing position for me. And sorry for taking so long to finalize my review. I have been at sea for some days and not been on-line. --Slaunger (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. --Slaunger (talk) 07:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
|
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC) |
|
View promotion |
Nominated by:
Romanceor [parlons-en] on 2009-08-01 20:48 (UTC) |
Scope:
Ernesto Cardenal |
Used in:
cf. ToolServer |
Question Why do you think it is better than File:Ernesto Cardenal a la Chascona 2.jpg? Scope formating fixed. Yann (talk) 00:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Info C'était une erreur ; File:Ernesto Cardenal a la Chascona 2.jpg est la bonne version. --Romanceor [parlons-en] 07:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Support I slightly prefer this one. Yann (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Oppose as not yet eligible for VI status. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it cannot at present become a valued image since it currently fails valued image criterion 5 (should be geocoded, but is not). "All images are expected to be geocoded unless it would not be appropriate to do so". I have not reviewed the nomination against all the criteria, but if you are able to fix this issue and would like me to re-evaluate the image please leave me a message on my talk page. - Rastaman3000 (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Done. --Romanceor [parlons-en] 18:49, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Support - Image is now geocoded. Good enough for me. Rastaman3000 (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose => promoted. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
|
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC) |
|
View promotion |
Nominated by:
Romanceor [parlons-en] on 2009-09-08 00:36 (UTC) |
Scope:
San Alipio Portal of San Marco Basilica in Venice |
Used in:
cf. ToolServer |
- Oppose - Scope too narrow. --Rastaman3000 (talk) 12:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support Scope are normal. In my opinion, it is valued place in the World --George Chernilevsky (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose Have to agree with Rastaman.
This is actually not even a scope but a copy of an unfortunately named category (adjusted Lycaon (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)). Lycaon (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
- Comment I'm pretty sad you don't consider that door as important as the tousands of mushrooms and insects promoted. The exemple of "Narrow scope" in the rules is about something else : this very precise scope seems to me to have the importance of the third exemple of "suitable scopes" in the rules : "A location of more than local interest, like Château Frontenac" --Romanceor [parlons-en] 01:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Oppose It's a matter of words, but not only. Of course, San Marco Basilica in Venice is an main building that deserves a scope. And I agree, your image is beautiful. But in the present case, the scope is worded: "Category:San Marco (Venice) - Facade doors - 01 - Mosaics". That's a link, not a scope. For buildings, criteria precise: When appropriate, the building scope can be divided in a "XXX (exterior)" scope and a "XXX (interior)" scope, so an acceptable scope would be "St. Mark's Basilica (Venice) (exterior)" - too wide for this image. About content: there are thousands of mushrooms and insects promoted, but there are also thousands of articles about mushrooms and insects in the various wikipedias (and much more not illustrated yet and needing a photo). San Alipio portal is not even mentioned in the article about the basilica in :it:w, :fr:w, :en:w, :de:w. (which personally, I regret). Moreover, the description could be more complete (criterion 4. "Is fully described on the image page.") and mention that the represented scene is "la translation du corps de Saint Marc" and that it is located in the "tympan" (in French) of the portal. --Myrabella (talk) 06:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Scope changed from Category:San Marco (Venice) - Facade doors - 01 - Mosaics to San Alipio Portal of San Marco Basilica in Venice L'absence d'une mention du portail ne devrait pas être discriminatoire ; et même au contraire, promouvoir l'image pourrait inciter à la rédaction de cette mention (existant déjà sur w:de:Markusdom). J'ai complété la description et changé le titre du scope, bien qu'il redirige toujours à la catégorie. --Romanceor [parlons-en] 07:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC) VIC-scope-change tempkated added by H005 (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
- Support Thanks for your complements. The new scope is more precise than usally for buildings, but it seems OK to me on the model of living species, for which "sub-scopes may be proposed to illustrate a specific aspect", if "these show different and significant aspects of the species." It's the case here: this portal contents the only original mosaic to be found on the facade. In the category, File:BSM IMG 3878.JPG displays more architectural elements and File:Venice - St. Mark's Basilica – Lunetta 02.jpg focuses more on the mosaic itself, but the nominated image is a good balance between the two options, it is of high quality and it is well documented now. --Myrabella (talk) 23:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support in new scope. meets all criteria, excellent qualty --George Chernilevsky (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support Agree with Myrabella. Yann (talk) 08:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support Reasonable scope IMHO. -- H005 (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
- Support Good scope, great picture. -- JovanCormac 15:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Result: 5 support, 2 oppose => promoted. Lycaon (talk) 23:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
|
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC) |
|
|