Reason:
Shows most of the town in rather good detail. Light is a little dull though (overcast in October). A competing image is IMO File:Qaqortoq2008.JPG, which has much better light, but shows less of the town. -- Slaunger (talk)
Reason:
Unique view of this monument. The photograph was taken from the "Tour Clovis" inside the "Lycée Henry IV". This tower is not open for public -- Jebulon (talk)
Oppose I know the experience. Getting access to such a viewpoint makes the photographer happy, but the outcome is often not as expected. --Ikar.us (talk) 23:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThe subject covers less than 10% of the image. Only fragments are visible, most is hidden behind trees and other houses. --Ikar.us (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First I would like to understand please the reasons of this support vote. Then, it seems to me that comparison is absolutely impossible between this two photographs, too different in my opinion. Maybe I was wrong with the chosen scope of the other view ? Why not a competition with: File:GD-FR-Paris-Le Louvre.jpg ?----Jebulon (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not about finding two partners for a 1:1 competition. By suggesting the scope, you started a competition among dozens of images depicting the Louvre palace. This is for me the one that tells more about the palace than any other. How the building looks, how it is structured, how it is situated on the river... Among non-aerial views, I'd prefer File:Paris_047..jpg, which shows the complete yard-side facade and a modern addition. It' already the category title image. --Ikar.us (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This one has very good light, showing many details of the tower. However, File:SegTorLozoya 20.8.2002.jpg gives better general impression of the tower and its settings. It's of poorer quality, but since appearance in small size is relevant here, I prefer the other one as VI. --Ikar.us (talk) 21:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:
It is only photo in that category with status of Feautered picture (or Quality image), biggest resolution and by far lowest noise. I think this remarkable Cathedral should be flagpic for that scope (I check one by one all of them). It's used on many Wikipedias. -- Mile
Comment St. Basil's strikingly couloured and textured domes are the best known, but not the most common variant of Russian domes. That's why I refrained from suggesting it. --Ikar.us (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Myrabella 1st picture You give is badly croped, compostion underdone and noise high. However the second one is composition i would refer to in this scope. And its similar to my picture, but again badly croped, and monothone with red color. I saw many of them, and in Siberia they are most wonderfull (contrast, colors, build-up). So my scope is to be not for all church as much for top of it (i must put photo in that article You gave). en:File:Kazan_church.jpg from Siberia is good too, i even tried to fix it (bad crop, distortion), but its impossible due to small size and crop, otherwise picture is marvelous. So, its not just St. Basil. --Mile (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are very quick attrubuting something "bad" that you don't like. The composition of this photo was obviouly based on lack of a wide angle lens. But that doesn't count for VI. --Ikar.us (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know for that Gorsky photo, but as I said my scope is more on onion domes. That one is nice considering church as whole, but quality just cant be compared. Prokudin-Gorskys pic domes are monothone, no contrast. Please consider the scope. I dont know if it is good to narrowing my scope to "Russian onion domes rooftop arhitecture" or something to be straigth. --Mile (talk) 00:03, 20 March 2010 (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".
Comment Sorry ikar.us i dont understand You, 3 nice onion of roof arent visible to You ? Dont You get the scope ? Its about Onion doomes exterior arhitecture, close shot must be. Please be free to put the better photo in the scope, or reconsider Your vote. --Mile (talk) 09:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The view is too steep from below thew domes. They look exactly the same as plain spheroid domes with a cross on their top. What makes the onion an onion, isn't visible (except for the right one, but still not complete). --Ikar.us (talk) 10:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Commentabout scope: the new scope proposed seems more suitable to me. Nevertheless, I think that a sub-scope (exterior) is not needed in that case. --Myrabella (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Infoabout quality requirement: I haven't begun to check over Commons images within this new scope. However, I draw your attention to the fact that quality requirement isn'the same for VI as for QI or FP. For VI, see criterion 3: "For photographs, the quality achievable using the built-in camera in a modern mobile phone should normally be good enough. [...] Reasonable sharpness, lighting, composition, and angle of view ; [...] The image must look good on-screen at the review size (e.g. 480x360 pixels for a standard 4:3 landscape image)"— that's all. --Myrabella (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would say subdivision exterior is necessary, since You have interior shots which ilustrate art (drawings of icons and similar) while in this scope focus is on more on shape with richness of colors which bring up atmosphere of Onion domes. P.S. For instance, i cant be in scope with something like File:St_Isaacs_Dome_Russia.jpg --Mile (talk) 10:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with an "interior/exterior" sub-scopes for domes in general, but for this specific sort of dome? That's the question: are there specific elements making the inside of a onion dome recognizable among other kinds of domes? E.g. between image 1 and image 2, can we say at first sight which one is an onion dome and wich one is not, only looking at them? If such elements exist, the sub-scopes are useful; otherwise, "Russian onion domes" could be a suitable and sufficient scope IMO. --Myrabella (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I try to explain my opposition and specify what I require from an image for this scope.
For the dome, it must be a real onion dome, i.e.
the maximum diameter of the dome is bigger than the diameter of the tower, i.e. a significant part of the under hemisphere of the onion is present.
the transition from convex to concave is at a relatevely low level, so that the onion tip is clearly present.
Otherwise, it's rather a hemispherical dome with embellished junctions to tower and tip.
For the image, the view must be nearly horicontal, so that the cross-section of the dome is projected in the image plane and is visible completely without distortion.
Comment Good, You explained Your view, but if You cant bring appropriate picture for this scope You arent helpfull. This is not voting for QI. Simple, is this VI in the scope ? If not, which one is it ? --Mile (talk) 15:13, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Myrabella does the searching... ;) Yes, while I objected St. Basil for domes in General, I support it for onion domes. --Ikar.us (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Myrabella, i saw that pic first time. In case it wouldnt be croped so badly (upper cut of tower), lowered noise and without shadow (second tower from left) this would be photo for VI. --Mile (talk) 15:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, since first one is in the trees and 2 among them are mine, they were uploaded on Serbian Wiki for some time (months), I just didnt put them on Commons, so I did it now. but I still wouldnt contest them with my nominee. --Mile (talk) 09:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)¸[reply]
I migth do so, if You insist so much on well shaped onions, as Ikar.us does. I will also reconsider scope for this. I am sure it worth VI, after all it was picked up in Travell article for Russia. --Mile (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To illustrate an "Onion domes" scope, a VI should preferably show well shaped onions, effectively :-) But your idea is good indeed (perhaps "Russian Revival domes" for this quite fine image?). That makes not one, but two potential VIs. --Myrabella (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2010 (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".
Support Difficult. Firstly, I know very few about Russian Revival style. However the Dormition Cathedral in Omsk had been built in the Russian Revival style, see en:Omsk#Culture and Points of Interest. Secondly, it seems that File:Омский Успенский собор1.jpg could be a new challenger within the scope. I tend to prefer the nominated image because I would say that it illustrates some tendencies of the style in a more close-up view, like decorative motifs, use of stucco (I'm not sure is the case here) and bricks, research of traditionnal shapes and adornments (after a too much quick look in this reference). To me is the most valuable of its category, even if this church has been demolished then rebuilt in the 2000s. --Myrabella (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is the previous oppose maintened? (after a scope change, "an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".) --Myrabella (talk) 00:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:
A pre-sovjet colour photo full of domes. -- Ikar.us (talk)
Oppose I've fixed the scope according to the title of the MVR and the status (discussed—it's a MVR). But even with the previous scope, I would oppose, because there are many domes in the picture, but they are are too far away to be considered as its main subject. The image fails criterion 3 to me. --Myrabella (talk) 09:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
