Reason:
More illustrative in my opinion. One can better see the Hudson and the lenght of the bridge in this image, taken the opening day. -- Myrabella (talk)
Reason:
While there are plenty of images from the park's architecture, I can't find another one which shows the park being visited by people. -- Ikar.us (talk)
Comment The nominated image is of nice quality, but it perhaps fails to show how big this exhibition park is. I read that its territory is greater than that of the Principality of Monaco. File:VVC central.jpg is of poorer quality, but it seems to me that it gives a better idea of this place. Perhaps would you have some other views in your archives? Note about the scope: inspired by the :en:WP article, I'd suggest to reword it into "All-Russia Exhibition Centre in Moscow". It seems that this exhibition centre is no longer officialy called "VDNKh" since 1992. --Myrabella (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is nice, too.
Is the forest area included in the territory sizing? Seems so. The photo is taken just behind the entrance gate and looks straight to cosmos pavillon. The longest viewshaft in the park, must be more than 1 km. But I see, it isn't obvious.
I've taken too few pictures there. Found File:ВДНХ.jpg.
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a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
Thanks for this new image, which illustrates the scope better than the first one IMO. I invite you to set up a MVR with your own challenger. --Myrabella (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support This image shows the park being visited, with one of its main buildings, the Central Pavillon, in the background. I find it better and more illustrative than e.g. 1, 2 or 3,—and than the nominated image too. Otherwise documented, geocoded, well categorized => all criterio met, OK to me. --Myrabella (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Info Thanks for you comment. The image has no geocode because it is a studio work. I have linked the scope, but there isn't very much on commons yet where I could link to... -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Best of the available images, showing the town and this special coast with tideland and rocks. Image page needs improvement. --Ikar.us (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:
The basic details of this somewhat odd mediaeval legend is that the Tiburtine sibyl showed the Emperor Augustus a vision of the Christian Heaven. I think this is the clearest of the images we have, showing all the basic elements. The other images are either too complex to be clear in thumbnail, do not show all the elements, or aren't as well drawn - though I would understand if someone wanted to put this up against one of the more colourful images for head-to-head voting. This is a 16th century chiascuro woodbloock print, which I realise we don't see much on Commons, but I believe this is of high artistic merit for this type of art. -- Adam Cuerden (talk)
Info It seems that this not much known Italian engraver, Antonio da Trento, made a kind of derivated work. This woodcut is apparently after an original design by the more famous artist Parmigianino, like other woodcuts he made. See: [2], [3], [4] and [[5]]).
Comment I have two comments, in fact: 1) For the scope "Tiburtine Sibyl", I would rather support the painting by the Master of the Tiburtine Sybil, not only because it is more colouful ;-) (see [1]). The reproduction we have in Commons is not of upstanding quality (File:Meister_der_tiburtinischen_Sibylle_001.jpg); nethertheless, I propose to set up a MVR. 2) I draw your attention to the fact that an image can be considered valued within more than one scope. I would suggest to prepare a second nomination for the scope "chiaroscuro woodcut". This topic deserves a scope to me: "It was in the medium of woodcut that color was first introduced into printmaking, in the prints known as chiaroscuro woodcuts" can one read in this source; see also Chiaroscuro woodcuts. But before nominating, some work is necessary: a related category should be created, with a bunch of images to sort (not only with prints by da Tranto ;-)—I can give a hand for that. This second scope would be suitably generic, and it might better salute the fine work of restoration you've achieved. --Myrabella (talk) 11:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with these proposals. I pondered the Master of the Tiburtine Sibyl's painting, but it's not a very good reproduction, and, at the tiny thumbnail size, I think it's very hard to understand, since the Virgin becomes just a speck, and the murky brown cast over the image - which is the reproduction's fault, that's typical for a Yorck Project work - blends the details together. If we had a good reproduction of it, I'd agree with you. The "more colourful" one I was thinking of was File:Nuremberg_chronicles_-_Tiburnine_Sibyll_(XCIIIv).jpg. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The mythic meeting of Caesar Augustus with the Tiburtine Sibyl later reinterpreted as a Christian theme became a favored motif of artists. Within this specific scope, I wouldn't support the nominated image for two reasons. Firstly, I am a bit reluctant to support an art work made by a not much know engraver, who did a derivated work after someone else design (or even worse, some sources even asserting that Permigianino's original designs were stolen). Secondly and focusing on the image itself, I aknowledge its quality but I would say that at the review size, one may have difficulties to understand what the Sibyl is showing (according to the caption, she points to "The Virgin Mary, with the Infant Christ in Her Lap" but it isn't so obvious) and that she shows this vision to an important figure. --Myrabella (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:
The mythic meeting of Caesar Augustus with the Tiburtine Sibyl later reinterpreted as a Christian theme became a favored motif of artists. This 15th-century painting by the Early Netherlandish painter known under the name "Master of Tiburtine Sibyl" is the most evocative to me, among the images available within this scope. See also: [1]. --Myrabella (talk). The image looks good on-screen at the review size, which is a VI quality requirement. 15:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC) -- Myrabella (talk)[reply]
Support Die flächige mittelalterliche Malweise ist ideal für kleine Ansichten. (In the translators' forum they haven't found an English word for flächig yet.) Well documented. --Ikar.us (talk) 21:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I just don't think the reproduction is good enough. It's so... yellow. The other image is supposed to be yellow. This one? It's a Yorck project reproduction, and they're almost always wrongly-coloured. Adam Cuerden (talk) 09:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The scopes isn't about the painting, but the subject that the painting depicts. IMO technical quality of the reproduction doesn't matter, if it doen't disturb recognizability of the subject.--Ikar.us (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I just don't agree. When the reproduction is this bad, with a strong yellow cast that makes the contrast between the figures be substantially reduced, it's just too misleading. It's being suggested as valued because of who its by - the Master of the Tiburtinian Sibyl. But it misrepresents his work. What if we cropped File:Nuremberg chronicles - Tiburnine Sibyll (XCIIIv).jpg down to the image, and did a little basic perspective correction? It's not great art, but it's notable and, if anything, much clearer at thumbnail size. Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:20, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've not actually used GIMP for perspective correction before - most of my edits are to engravings I prepared myself. I'll see what happens. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:
Unfortunately, location is not known, but I think it is a pretty nice and illustrative picture, with two stages of the flower (like in the previous VI). -- Eusebius (talk)
I'll ask the author for geocoding. Support The best of the three, IMO. But maybe it could be considered as a "set" ?--Jebulon (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
_edit.jpg){kind=link}
_edit.jpg){kind=link}
_edit.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
