User talk:Romanceor/VI

fr-2 Cette personne peut contribuer avec un niveau intermédiaire de français. en-2 This user is able to contribute with an intermediate level of English. es-2 Este usuario puede contribuir con un nivel intermedio de español.

Click to see my photographs.

^category

^www

  • Wikipédia-fr |      • My pictures | 
  • Wikimedia Commons |  

---

Images de valeur de Romanceor — Romanceor valued images

Dernière mise à jour par — Last update by : Romanceor [parlons-en] 12:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

---

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Trogir's Riva, Croatia.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support All 6 criteria look good. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
William Klein.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support This image has the best composition, but some may find that the cropped version Image:William Klein à la Cinémathèque française-cropped.jpg is slightly more efficient for online use in Wikimedia projects since there is less open space. I prefer the nominated image though. It is a good, clean and expressive portrait of a relevant photographer and film maker. I created a dedicated Category:William Klein on the occasion and substituted the existing Category:Photographers from the United States with this more specific category (which is also associated to Category:Film directors from the United States). -- Slaunger (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Jean-Claude Carrière.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  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)
  •  Info Categorized. Romanceor ^[parlons-en] 11:40, 4 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)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Jean-Pierre Beauviala.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Oppose 6th criterion --Eusebius (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  •  Info Categorized. Romanceor ^[parlons-en] 11:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 12:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Foroa (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Antoine Duhamel.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Oppose 6th criterion --Eusebius (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  •  Info Categorized. Romanceor ^[parlons-en] 11:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 12:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Serge Toubiana.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Oppose 6th criterion (uncategorized). --Eusebius (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
  •  Info Categorized. Romanceor ^[parlons-en] 11:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me. Lively picture. --Eusebius (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Dani Kouyaté.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support meets criteria. Would be nice to say who the guy is in the picture description (or via a WP link). --Eusebius (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Ray Lema.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support meets criteria. --Eusebius (talk) 14:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Pierre Schoendoerffer.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Meets criteria. Would be nice to say who the guy is in the picture description (or via a WP link). --Eusebius (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Luc Moullet.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support meets criteria. Would be nice to say who the guy is in the picture description (or via a WP link). --Eusebius (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
André S. Labarthe.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Please geotag it and fix the categories. --Eusebius (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  •  InfoGeotagged and categories fixed.   Romanceor ^[parlons-en] 16:57, 2 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)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Manoel de Oliveira.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Question Could you make the scope "Manoel de Oliveira" (with the link)? --Eusebius (talk) 09:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

  Missing geotag. --Eusebius (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

  •  Info Geotagged and linked. --  Romanceor ^[parlons-en] 17:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 17:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. --Eusebius (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Dubrovnik walls.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  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)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Ernesto Cardenal.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 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)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
San Alipio Portal of San Marco Basilica in Venice.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  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)