Comment Could you add a relevant link in the scope in order to ease the review, for example to the Commons gallery Category:Cowboys? There are some other rather suitable images in this category, e.g. File:American shepherd4.jpg (in colors and with a higher definition I was comparing with this version of the nominated image). This one isn't bad, too: File:Texascowboys (cropped).jpg (after all, the chosen scope is Cowbows). All these pictures need to be geocoded, the nominated image included.--Myrabella (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added geolocation, but I don't know what you mean by adding relevant link. It's normal that the name of the scope is in plural. (The best image of a cowboy among the cowboys, in this case) The images that you mention can not compare to this one. This is authentic old west cowboy. These are modern cowboys and frankly I don't like this picture - composition and quality. This one has better composition, but the quality is not so good for a modern photograph. But as I said, the main problem is that these are modern cowboys. This one looks nice but that's the picture of a shepherd. Nevertheless, I think that the file I've nominated is most suitable. --Lošmi (talk) 13:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks both of you for the geocoded data and the link. Images of modern cowboys must not be excluded as a matter of principle, as they exist, unless the scope is "19e century cowboy" or "Wild West cowboy". But it's true that the images in Commons aren't tremendous (OK for the shepherd, -the file is miscategorized). For singular/plurial wording, see this previous review. --Myrabella (talk) 17:01, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg){kind=link}
_(2179144402).jpg){kind=link}
