Oppose bad crop of original; image unrestored besides having said crop, which removes damaged areas, but ruins the composition. Any competent restorationist could get a much better crop out of this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The damage is visible even at thumbnail resolution, and even moreso at review. That white spot on his beard? That's damage, not reality. That bump beelow his cheek? Damage. That awkward crop at the bottom? Came from hacking away at the original. That's not dandruff on his collar, it's damage, etc, etc. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably true, but again, the picture is largely above the quality criteria for the VI status (which does not focus on technical quality). --Eusebius (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support (Minor) quality issues aside, I prefer photographic portraits over illustrations/engravings for people scopes. I do like how the other one shows his important achievements.. but when I consider VIs, I think of what image I would pick to go in the top right-hand corner of the subject's Wikipedia article. This one would be it. However, this is a weak support and I hope it's not the only/deciding vote. Rocket000 (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose From what I understand, it is not really a Geiger counter but a "survey meter". For a Geiger counter I'd probably nominate File:Geiger counter FNAL.jpg or File:Geiger counter.jpg. The first one is of better quality but does not have the "classical" look of an old-fashion Geiger counter (and maybe it has more functionalities). Second image would look OK at review size, even though it sucks at full size (impossible to read on the device's facade). It would probably be a good idea to set up an MVR with the three pictures (the image pages can be improved, and no geotag is needed). --Eusebius (talk) 11:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sorry, cropped way to tightly: should include the jutty on the right with the moving figurines and the mural above the clock, and for that scope (the whole tower), not a representative illustration. It's a difficult subject to photograph, though, since it's high on that tower and the trolley power lines interfere if you try to get a shot from farther away. Possibly a better view that would require less perspective correction could be obtained only by gaining access to the upper level of one of the neighbouring buildings (above the power lines) and then using a tele. Also lacks geocoding. (And yes, the UNESCO Heritage Site is the whole old town.) Lupo09:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Geocoding is there. I think the jutty is a different subject, so it could be a scope on its own. I think the mural above is not in anyway part of the clock. Yann (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Right, sorry. Don't know why I didn't see the geocoding. Note that both the astronomical clock and the musical clock in the jutty are the work of Caspar Brunner and were completed 1530. The golden cock on the right side in the image is part of the jutty.See here: the tower is described from p. 107 on, its clocks from p. 120 on. (In German.) Anyway, what's the intended scope: "astronomical clock" or "astronomical clock on the Zytglogge tower", or "Zytglogge tower"? It might work with the first or second (though the second is a bit narrow). Changed my oppose to a mere comment, though I'm still not happy with the crop. Also: can't you correct the perspective a little more to make the vertical lines really vertical, and the horizontal line horizontal? Maybe the legs at the top can then be cropped away... but I fear the cock will remain. Lupo22:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I made another version: File:Zeitglocken Bern edit.jpg. I followed your suggestions and I also removed the lower part. I only partly corrected the perspective on the right, but the cock is cut in half... That's why I didn't do it first. If you think it is worth, I can make a MVR. My proposition for the scope is "astronomical clock on the Zytglogge tower". Sorry if that was not clear. I also have an image of the jutty: File:Carillon Zytglogge Berne.jpg. For the scope "astronomical clock", I think that there are many different styles and features, and it will be difficult to find an image representing them all, although I don't really know. Yann (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Couldn't resist making another edit. Maybe even that bit of concrete with the wires at the bottom could be edited away and the obscured tiny piece of the border of the clock face restored... It is a cool image after all; kudos! What's an MVR?
I'm still unsure about the scope. "Astronomical clock at the Zytglogge tower" strikes me as too narrow; it's not generic enough. But looking through Category:Astronomical clocks, it seems to me that albeit they're all different, this one is a good speciman well photographed. The image (preferrably an edit of it) might really work with the more general scope "astronomical clocks". Lupo09:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
