Comment@Spurzem: IMHO, the scope is too narrow and overly descriptive. "McLaren M7B of Vic Elford" might be a more appropriate scope but would like to hear your thoughts on why this image was nominated as most valuable and for what scope. --GRDN711 (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GRDN711: I didn't know there was a second picture in the commons that was taken at this point and time. But if you have one, introduce it. I don't make a living from my photo being awarded. -- Spurzem (talk) 09:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The time and place are of interest, but are seldom relevant as part of a scope for a car, person or animal. There are many exceptions, but this isn't one (Elford's not actually at practice, just sitting in the car). Good scopes could be McLaren M7B of Vic Elford or McLaren M7B (1969) of Vic Elford (if the M7B ran in different liveries etc.) Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:52, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: That's right: Elford is sitting in the car, not in the race, but during practice on Nürburgring for the German Grand Prix 1969. I don't understand what's wrong and why this almost 53 year old photo might not be valuable. -- Spurzem (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is valuable, but do we need the exact event and date for the scope? Anyone interested can find the additional detail in the file description. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I hadn't mentioned the event and year in the scope, someone else would probably miss it. Opinions are so different. -- Spurzem (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I expect they might... There is no problem unless someone else thinks they can have a scope of the same race car/livery/driver parked on some other circuit. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Spurzem: I am trying not to oppose your VI nomination but will do so with the current scope. This scope is too descriptive (too narrow) such that per COM:VIS, it does not define a generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example. Charles offered a couple of good options for you to consider. --GRDN711 (talk) 00:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GRDN711: I'm getting enough. Every bird egg, every snail, every shell, etc., which could be photographed again at any time, is highly praised here. But a 53-year-old photograph of a motorsport event, unique in the Commons, you obviously want to smash. If you have something personal against me, please tell me. -- Spurzem (talk) 11:10, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Regretfully I am objecting to this VI nomination as the scope, as currently defined, as being too narrow and descriptive per COM:VI and COM:VIS. I hope I have been clear about the nature of my objection and have provided options should you wish to correct.
Valued Image is a consensus process of many photographers. If I am regarded as incorrect in my thinking on this, others will out-vote me in support.
My objection is not personal. I am half-way around the world from you and do not know you. I assume you are a photographer with a good heart who is serious about nominating your image for a VI rating. I suggest you address the scope issue I have raised.
The photographers who are nominating “every bird egg, every snail, every shell, etc.” follow the domain-specific scope guidelines per COM:VIS that have been specifically written for birds and animals. From my observation, they are also careful about nominating only one image for each scope category (typically species or sub-species) that is obviously the most valuable. --GRDN711 (talk) 15:06, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think there are different possibilities to define that scope. To me it's acceptable as it is, the image is valuable, anyway. --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:38, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Palauenc05: @Spurzem: You are right. There is more than one way to define a scope, but it should be in keeping with the guidelines of COM:VIS which state that a suitable VI scope must define “a generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example”.
In my opinion, the current scope “McLaren M7B of Vic Elford at practice for the German Grand Prix 1969 on Nürburgring” is a layered description of the image rather than the more concise generic field or category required by the COM:VIS as a scope definition.
Charles and I have offered two scope suggestions for Spurzem to consider – “McLaren M7B of Vic Elford” or “McLaren M7B (1969) of Vic Elford” that should meet COM:VIS guidelines for a “just right” scope that is not too narrow or wordy. I personally think that if the scope could be cleaned up, this image would then meet all 6 criteria for a Valued Image rating. --GRDN711 (talk) 04:02, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
