Commons:Valued image candidates/Andernach, Bäckerjungenbrunnen, Detail 2 (2019-08-28 Sp).JPG

Andernach, Bäckerjungenbrunnen, Detail 2 (2019-08-28 Sp).JPG

**promoted**
Image
Nominated by	Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2019-09-03 12:05 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Sculpture of the Bäckerjungenbrunnen in Andernach, view from southwest
Used in	Global usage
Review (criteria)	Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Comment I think we need title and/or sculptor for VI, Lothar Spurzem. And do we need this cropped image as well as the more distant view from the same POV? Charles (talk) 10:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Charlesjsharp: I don't understand the almost regular criticism of my photos. Sometimes the scopes are too short, sometimes they are too long. The name of the sculptor is in the description of the picture, and the year of the creation of the work of art is mentioned too. The title of the work is "Bäckerjungenbrunnen" (refering to a local tale of two young bakers who defended their town against aggressors). And why should we not have a detailed picture and additionally a picture of the entire fountain? Regards -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:21, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Spurzem: @Archaeodontosaurus: I will bow to the experience of Didier, but all works of art I've seen promoted to VI have the name of the artist in the scope. Why not here? Also, I see now there may be an error of English, but your scope says on the Bäckerjungenbrunnen which implies a street name, I think you meant to type of the Bäckerjungenbrunnen I do not know which 'regular criticisms' you are referring to. Charles (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Charlesjsharp: For explanation: Baker boys are young men who want to become bakers and are trained by a master. The legend tells that they saw attackers approaching the city early in the morning. Then they took beehives, hurled them into the group of soldiers who were stabbed and fled. Should I write all this into the scope? I can also name the sculpter's name in Scope, maybe date of birth, place of birth, date of death and place of death. Perhaps the name of her husband is also important, so that you can recognize the image as a VI. In this context, I remember one of my first presentations here, a portrait of the racing driver Hannelore Werner. At that time the scope was criticized as too extensive, in such a way that I almost lost the desire to show a picture here at all. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 12:14, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Your sarcasm is not needed here. You could show some respect to a polite and reasonable request. You are a very experienced Wikipedian so I am surprised. Perhaps you are having a bad day. I have not opposed your nomination; I just want it improved. Charles (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] It takes a single scope unambiguously possible. For the charts the titles are very redundant and it is imperative to give the name of the author and the title. There is currently a nomination which gives the name of the place of the version because the same author may have painted several versions of the same subject. In the specific case that concerns us it is possible to give the name of the author but the scope as it was labeled is unique it is impossible to be wrong.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Comment I have corrected the English in the scope so that it makes sense. Charles (talk) 08:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Charlesjsharp: In what way was the preposition that I had chosen wrong? The sculpture is on (the top of) the fountain. What did you not understand? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] The scope said on the ... and I changed to of the ... "on the" does not make sense unless the sculpture was "on" the baker boys. Which it isn't. It's a sculpture "of" the baker boys. Charles (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] Comment Sorry, as a detail, which it is, it suffers from a cluttered background (which could have been defocussed), and the other closeup (with leafy background) better expresses the detail for me, although taken from slightly more to the left would have been even better. It also has a very similar scope to another nomination for the same statue ("from the southwest"). Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] @Rodhullandemu: Are we here at "Featured pictures plus" and what other photo from this angle is better? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 07:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply] `Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 08:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)`[reply]