Request Scope should be changed to "Crematoria" instead of "Ovens" (most commonly used in cooking and pottery). Furthermore, I would suggest to widen the scope to "Crematoria in concentration camps". --Myrabella (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:
To me, this period image has a higher value for the scope, even if it will never get promoted to QI. Note that it is dated from may-june 1945, according to Deutsches Bundesarchiv, i.e. after the liberation of the camp. -- Myrabella (talk)
Judicious remark. Would you have any opinion on the others candidates presented in that MVR ? Plus: we could add that image to the MVR, in order to take account of your comment. --Myrabella (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:
A very stricking image within the scope, too. -- Myrabella (talk)
Support I know that there can be only one VI in a scope, but for me there are two in this MVR which have equal value, though due to slightly different reasons. I'll let someone else give the deciding vote(s). Wolf (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:
If a recent image was prefered, I'd tend to think that this one would well illustrate the scope. -- Myrabella (talk)
Support I know that there can be only one VI in a scope, but for me there are two in this MVR which have equal value, though due to slightly different reasons. I'll let someone else give the deciding vote(s). Wolf (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
MVR scores:[reply]
Comment For this town, I imagine it would be appropriate to have an image showing the Main River if possible (I noticed 1 or 2, for instance, but better examples may exist)? --Myrabella (talk) 14:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, the second image you point out fails to show the city centre. The first one is taken from a skyscraper in the city centre, thus giving only a partial vue of it. It's a multi-criteria optimization problem now: is it more relevant to show a full view of the visually prominent skyscraper zone of the city or to show the river? Feel free to set up an MVR if you deem it necessary. --Eusebius (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have brought out the issue very clearly. I tend to incline towards the second option: an image showing the river (it is Frankfurt am Main, after all :-), some "old" buildings (the town has a long history) and an evocation of "Mainhattan" (even only partially) could well epitomize the scope too. What would you think of File:Skyline Frankfurt.jpg, by Der Wolf im Wald too? --Myrabella (talk) 11:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I slightly favor this one, which gives a wider view of the city. It would seem strange to have a city scope and focus on a few buildings in a small area when we have this kind of picture. --Eusebius (talk) 22:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:
The question is: for this scope, is it more relevant to show a full view of the visually prominent skyscraper zone of the city or to show the river? I tend to incline towards the second option: an image showing the river (it is Frankfurt am Main, after all :-), some "old" buildings (the town has a long history) and an evocation of "Mainhattan" (even only partially) could well epitomize the scope too. This alternative image is from the same author, Der Wolf im Wald. -- Myrabella (talk)
Comment I am not a specialist, but I would advance that the chosen scope seems too narrow. I would suggest to change it to "Pit stops in Formula One", with a link to the fitting category. New competitors may exist within that suggested widener scope—sportive spirit, indeed! --Myrabella (talk) 12:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, it wasn't an attempatative to remove the sportive spirit. The thing is that this is one of my first post in the VI section ;). Fale (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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".
Oh, my fault! I only tried to say that it would be sportive to change the scope even knowing that it could be more difficult. I am truly sorry for this misunderstanding. Thanks for the change; I hope that this new scope will attract some more reviewers :-) --Myrabella (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably I posted a 'too strong' answer, because I understood you were not pointing to a bad-faith act :). I hope too that in this way it will attract more reviewers :) Fale (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hesitate with that one. More men in action, perhaps more illustrative (one can understand what is that distracting "fishing rod" across the nominated image) but I like the composition of yours. I'd set up a MVR if the "opponent" was geocoded (rather easy to do, I guess). --Myrabella (talk) 07:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:
Compared with the other picture nominated in the MVR, this image show more men in action, it is a bit more descriptive (one can understand here what is that distracting "fishing rod" across the other nominated image) but its composition is less dynamic, IMO. However, aesthetics is not of prime importance for a VI. --Myrabella (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC) -- Myrabella (talk)[reply]
Reason:
I'd like to add this photo to the MVR because of two things: the changing of the tires is illustrated and the essential lollipop (the stop sign) is slightly more visible. Therefore, I think this has more value. -- MattiPaavola (talk)
Comment I'm sorry for the unhappy crop :(. If it wasn't for that... I would have surely said that this is the best of the MVR... Fale (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support This image is the only one on Commons showing the two parts of the castle (according to en:Drummond Castle, "the oldest part is a tower-house" (ruined then rebuilt); "a large mansion was added on the other side of the courtyard in the 1690s"). Its resolution is good enough for the review size asked for a VIC. --Myrabella (talk) 05:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am really embarrassed because according to en:Drummond Castle, "the oldest part is a tower-house" (ruined then rebuilt); "a large mansion was added on the other side of the courtyard in the 1690s". The other image shows these both parts, plus the topiary garden, but in a low resolution. --Myrabella (talk) 12:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The resolution of the other picture is good enough for the review size. Images should normally not be considered at full resolution for VI. I nominated this picture because it shows the corps de logis better and in a front view, I nominated the other one because it showed both buildings (although in a side view). The gardens are indeed very specific to the castle, but they're, in my view, accessory to the building scope. I'm not sure they're vital to the VI. I guess my little speech doesn't help your review :-) --Eusebius (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I tend to prefer this image, because it clearly depicts the structure of the fort, and it is more informative about its topographic situation. --Myrabella (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Exactly. Except that the tide is not "full" on this one, it is "almost" high tide. I don't have any preferences about this point, it can be valuable to show that it is an island or almost an island at high tide, and also valuable to show that it is accessible by foot at low tide. --Eusebius (talk) 06:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for your adjuncts. It's time to review it, now! In this image, the light and shadows enhance the star-shape of the fortifications, but there are distracting elements (the green pipe, the big tent). Another point: as the scene takes place at high tide, one can't understand the situation of the fort island at first sight (close to the shore or miles away from it?). --Myrabella (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
