Oppose The actor is here playing the role of another famous person (Sacha Guitry). This is incompatible with crit. 3, according to me. --Eusebius (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I skimmed the en article for the national park and even after doing that I still do not understand what I actually see in the image? One third is water, another third is sky and trees, then we have some beach, and some ruins half covered in shadow. Reading the image page does not help either, as it only mentions the national park. As I understand one of the things this national park is known for is traces from Roman settlements. Are these ruins the traces of the settlements? In conclusion I do not think it is a good illustration of the scope. As I understand there are quite some characteristics of this national park such as limestone quarries, pitoresque buildings, nature resorts. I am not sure exactly how a photo would look like which adequately illustrates the scope; perhaps an aerial shot? Anyway, I do not think the nominated image does its job. Sorry.--Slaunger (talk) 20:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for this very complete review. It is even more than complete. --Romanceor[parlons-en] 10:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment You're welcome. Nice to get positive feedback from a nominator when opposing a nomination. It is not so common. --Slaunger (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Not a suitably generic scope (criterion n° 2): insufficient notoriety of this guitarist member of a French reggae group. Only one echo in fr:wp, which refers to the article about the group, and he is not even mentioned in the main text, only in the infobox... --Myrabella (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment Nice shot of a musician in close proximity with his audience, but it seems to me that the scope isn't relevant enough for VI. I was wondering who this performer could be, and then I found : of course, he is one half of the duo "Amadou & Mariam"! That's the problem: the pair is well-known, with articles in different Wikipedias, but it is not the case for each of them individually. He isn't notable enough (or at least, not yet) for a suitable VI scope, IMO. --Myrabella (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment I underdstand quite well you opinion but I don't see in what criteria is the one you're talking about... --Romanceor[parlons-en] 09:23, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
CommentN° 2. "Is nominated as being the most valuable within a suitably generic scope." + in the page Commons:Valued image scope, cf. Examples of suitable scopes, n°5 "A portrait of a notable person, like Juan Carlos I of Spain" + § Links in the scope (even if links are not compulsory, this paragraph helps to understand). Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Not a suitably generic scope, see the discussion above. --Myrabella (talk) 08:12, 26
June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose, per criteria 3, as my eye is not attracted by Amadou but by the assistance. --Dereckson (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
* Question Is some of those image can technically be combined in a panorama using a software like hugin? If so, adding a panorama to this set would increase the value, wouldn't it? --Dereckson (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
No, there are no panoramas possible ; if you look close, you'll see the same volcano is on allmost every picture... In fact was more thinking about illustrating the diversity of colours and textures of the Chilean Altiplano. --Romanceor[parlons-en] 13:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Comment Not geocoded. HBR (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Apart from the missing geocode, I do not think that just the head of a single person is suitable to illustrate the scope sufficiently. I'd expect several people or at least the entire person with their full clothes in execution of their job. Also, the scope should be "Griots", not "Category:Griots". It's a fascinating photo nonetheless. -- H005 20:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
