Commons:Valued image candidates/Erfinderbrunnen von Gernot Rumpf in Koblenz, Detail Schildkröte (2021-06-09 Sp).JPG

Erfinderbrunnen von Gernot Rumpf in Koblenz, Detail Schildkröte (2021-06-09 Sp).JPG

**promoted**
Image
Nominated by	Spurzem (talk) on 2021-06-15 12:13 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Allegorical turtle as a reminiscence of the automobile manufacturer August Horch at the Erfinderbrunnen in Koblenz, made by Gernot Rumpf in 1983
Used in	Global usage
Reason	I haven't found a place to put the image in some text yet, but I think it's beautiful and valuable. -- Spurzem (talk)
Review (criteria)	Comment Beautiful image. The scope appears to be a description of the specific image rather than generic. --Tagooty (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] Hallo Tagooty, with the best will, I don't understand what is supposed to be wrong with the scope. Sometimes the description is too short for the critics, sometimes too extensive. I said that this turtle with wheels is a allegorical sculpture as a reminiscence of the German automobile manufacturer Horch. Further you read that it is a part of a fountain (Erfinderbrunnen) made by Gernot Rumpf in 1983. Best regards -- Spurzem (talk) 07:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] If I may, I think the scope is OK, and I'm not sure what would be good to remove from it, if a decision were made to do that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] I get your point about different reviewers giving conflicting advice! It is true that COM:VISC does not specify how to write the scope, so I'll accept the scope that you prefer. I'd like to explain my reasoning for your consideration. To me, the scope needs to be concise, so it is easily understood, so it may be used as a caption for the image in a gallery, etc. It should contain just enough text to uniquely identify the subject, with detailed descriptions elsewhere -- in the filename, summary, etc. E.g. "Turtle sculpture in the Erfinderbrunnen in Koblenz" is unique, the rest to me is redundant. I think "automobile manufacturer" is not a good descripton of August Horch, the term is normally used for a company. The lead sections in en.wiki and de.wiki describe him as a "German engineer", "automobile pioneer", "German mechanical engineer" and "founder of automobile companies Horch and Audi". Once you decide whether or not to modify the scope, I'll support the nomination. --Tagooty (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] I find your explanations grumbling, maybe also as a return coach, because I recently criticized your photo of a stained glass window because of falling lines, which incidentally was inaccurate described. But it doesn't matter what your real reason for rejection is. I don't live on your or anyone else's finding this photo valuable. - Spurzem (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] Support OK for me. --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] Support Best in scope --Tagooty (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply] `Result: 2 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)`[reply]