Reason:
This photo was taken six years ago and shows the aging Gavin MacLeod. It has the deprecated license tag, but it was added before October 2008 or at the time of its upload. -- George Ho (talk)
Comment Can you give more information when was the peak of his career (fame)? I think on the other photograph he is too young.--MrPanyGoff15:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ...Maybe here goes: Gavic MacLeod is mostly seen in The Mary Tyler Moore Show (1970-77) and Love Boat (1977-86). More recently, he has appeared in Christianity-theme shows, especially at this age. --George Ho (talk) 15:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:
This is the photo of Gavin MacLeod in 1970, used mainly for editorial purposes. This is consequently in the public domain because of its lack of copyright notice, required by Copyright Act of 1909. Although greyscaled, this image is very old and more likely historical. -- George Ho (talk)
Support I am not completely satisfied with this one (technical issues such as need for perspective correction and straightening detract, and I think it would be better from about 20 yards to the right, to better show the entrance), but I do think it is the best we have. cmadler (talk) 13:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Things still look a little funny to me...the far outside walls of the citadel have a pronounced inward slant, and the plaza in the foreground slopes upward from left to right. Or maybe that's actually the way the citadel is? cmadler (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the technical quality for this image is not enough. The color is oversaturated and the image as a whole is too dark. His hair almost fades into the background, his shoulders do fade into the background, there is no way to see his arms against his torso, and the lapel is just a big bright red blob. cmadler (talk) 18:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:
There are already a valued image of the Arc de Triomphe du Carrousel, but I think this picture is far better (light, composition, sky, no tourists walking). -- Paris 16 (talk)
Support I think this image is best. It's a straight-on view of the monument, and I think the presence of people is beneficial as it gives a sense of scale. cmadler (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think this image is better; the rock structures are more easily visible thanks to the lighting in this photo. cmadler (talk) 13:16, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why ? I think it is especially proper in this case ! We are here right in the middle of the target of the VI project, IMO. Three "featured pictures" of the same subject from the same point of view is an exceptional scope, never seen here until today.--Jebulon (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Featured Pictures of Neuschwanstein as seen from Marienbrücke" is the intersection of two things: "Neuschwanstein as seen from Marienbrücke" and "Featured Pictures". "Neuschwanstein as seen from Marienbrücke" is a suitable scope because the castle looks a certain way from that angle and can be generally identified as such from the photo itself. "Featured Pictures", however, is not a suitable scope element because it can never be identified from the photo itself. Per Commons:Valued image scope, "There should be something visible in the nominated image which links it specifically in some way with the chosen scope. So for example "storm clouds over London" would not be acceptable unless there were buildings or other features visible which could distinguish it from, say, "storm clouds over Sydney" or "storm clouds over Tokyo"." In this case, there is no way, looking only at a photo itself, to determine whether it is a Featured Picture of Neuschwanstein as seen from Marienbrücke or a non-featured picture of the same scene. It's no more appropriate than, for example, using "User:Cmadler's photos of the Ypsilanti Water Tower" as a scope. cmadler (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to be absolutely not convinced by your argumentation, and continuing to fully disagree with you regarding this point...--Jebulon (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why ? I think it is especially proper in this case ! We are here right in the middle of the target of the VI project, IMO. Three "featured pictures" of the same subject from the same point of view is an exceptional scope, never seen here until today.--Jebulon (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Why ? I think it is especially proper in this case ! We are here right in the middle of the target of the VI project, IMO. Three "featured pictures" of the same subject from the same point of view is an exceptional scope, never seen here until today.--Jebulon (talk) 21:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:
This photo was taken during the production of I Love Lucy. -- George Ho (talk)
Comment If we didn't have File:I Love Lucy Cast.JPG, this one would be adequate for VI, and there's certainly something to be said for an on-set in-character shot from the show. However, I think the other being frontal portaits while this is in profile trumps any argument of posed versus action shots. cmadler (talk) 13:02, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:
This picture's view is frontal portrait. Shadow a little too dim, and the pictured subject wore a hat. Nevertheless, worth nominating along with the other photo. -- George Ho (talk)
Reason:
This image is more simple than the any other. Simple posture and simple shot. No gimmicks or slapstick emphases. That's all. -- George Ho (talk)
the portrait is made in lower technical quality (e.g. lacking sharpness), it look also very posed and not natural. Beside of this: why should a comedian not be shown in his typical gesture? This person is known for acting like this. --Wladyslaw (talk) 07:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not saying that the other photo is bad. I just wonder if that is more valuable than this photo. There are other photos with simple posture, such as the George Maharis photo and File:I Love Lucy Cast.JPG. I don't intend to compete the other photo, all right? The other photo is fine as is, but does it have to be the most valuable image within the scope? --George Ho (talk) 07:25, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Info This image is nominated for deletion. It is currently researched to determine copyright status of this photo. It may affect this image's eligibility in Commons, especially as "Valued Image". --George Ho (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this image is deleted, it will be delisted as a VI. It is not ineligible simply because it is nominated for deletion. Please wait for the DR to complete, or open a Most Valued Review if you prefer another image in this scope. --Walter Siegmund(talk)04:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reason:
This photo shows the molded text on the sculpture. Flowers in this photo must not substantially interfere the text. Located at the cemetary owned by the U.S. Government. -- George Ho (talk)
Comment The formulation of the scope now includes all „Civil War Unknowns Monuments” in the world. Usually some clue about the location is placed after comma: „Civil War Unknowns Monument, Arlington”.--MrPanyGoff06:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The formulation of the scope now includes all „Civil War Unknowns Monuments” in the world. Usually some clue about the location is placed after comma: „Civil War Unknowns Monument, Arlington”.--MrPanyGoff06:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fully agree. To be precise enough, I suggest: "U.S. Civil War Unknowns Monument, Arlington National Cemetery, VA." (There were other "Civil Wars" in the world, and maybe we have a Civil War Unknowns monument in Arlington, Texas ?)--Jebulon (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Although I acknowledge the concern, I disagree with the need to disambiguate in general, and with the specific formulation proposed by Jebulon. You are treating this as though the scope name is merely descriptive, and if that were the case I would entirely agree. But this is not simply descriptive; "Civil War Unknowns Monument" is the actual name of the thing. cmadler (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the people don't know these facts and they are going to wonder where is this because there is a monument of unknowns in their town too.--MrPanyGoff17:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think most such are called "Tomb of the Unknown Soldier" or something like that ("Tomb of the Unknowns", "Monument to the Unknown Soldier", etc.). Can you point to other monuments, actually existing, also called "Civil War Unknowns Monument"? cmadler (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
