Commons:Valued image candidates/Donald Tusk (6165309851).jpg/Archive of previous reviews

•  Question - Isn't this scope a bit broad? There are plenty of images of Donald Tusk on Commons. Maybe a more appropriate, more narrow scope for a Valued Image would be "Profile shots of Donald Tusk", or something like that, in my opinion. -- Philip Terry Graham (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 Comment see debate on talk page. On this one he's clearly notable, but I don't see how we can say one of the pictures in the category gallery is more valuable than the others. It's a nonsense. And I don't think we should have scopes of DT with xx and DT with YY either. Churchill with Roosevelt and Stalin would be OK! I really do think we risk ruining the reputation of VI and making fools of ourselves with pictures of living people. Charles (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Question Charles, debate on what talk page? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Main VIC talk page. Charles (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

There hasn't been any discussion I can see that would suggest that "Donald Tusk" couldn't be a reasonable scope. Don't our readers benefit from having some VIs of him? We can start with one and either add others or replace the image with another, in time. Right? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

•  CommentQuite good, but it needs geocoding. Yann (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Info By looking at the background of the photo, it most likely occurred at indoors. There were bookshelves. I was able to use the Bing Translator to pinpoint the original location of the photo. I looked at the photo album and realize that Tusk visited one of the Polish universities. Therefore, Yann, I added the geocoding by copying and pasting the location from the university article. --George Ho (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Support --Yann (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose - It's a decent portrait shot, but as I said before, the scope is too broad. There are hundreds of pictures of Donald Tusk on Commons. I think choosing this particular image as the most valued in this very broad scope would be very controversial at best. Philip Terry Graham (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose I agree with PTG. Charles (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment @PhilipTerryGraham, Charlesjsharp, Ikan Kekek: I thought about narrowing the scope to either "Portrait of Donald Tusk", "Donald Tusk in 2009", "Photo shoot of Donald Tusk", "Donald Tusk in a university", or something else. Any other suggestions? --George Ho (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment No scope would persuade me. Charles (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 2 oppose =>
declined. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment Narrowed the scope and re-nominated the image. --George Ho (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Oppose As above. Charles (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Charles: There are only a few potential candidates now. Why do you oppose? Regards, Yann (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

• 1. Because it's a meaningless category, because the photos in it are not 'portraits'. 2. Even within this scope, we cannot judge which is most valuable. 3. Because a VI should be the most valuable image, irrespective of whether it is a studio portrait or a journalist's photo or whatever. 4. Because there are many images of this man on Commons and the choice of this one is SUBJECTIVE. Where possible, VI judging should be OBJECTIVE. For instance, some people prefer a smiling face, others a stern one. You and the nominator prefer a smirking face. As I said above, it is a nonsense for us to pretend we know best. Charles (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Ok for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment Obviously I need a rest from VI! Charles (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Neutral - The scope has been narrowed, but there are still other images in the scope that can easily be thought of as the most valued of this scope. I agree with Charles on this one. It is a matter of subjectivity whether or not this is the most valued image of the scope. Either way, it'd be a lot better to bring this image and the other images of its scope into a most valued review instead. I'll be sure to do that regardless of whether this one fails or passes this initial review. The only way to bring objectivity would be a consensus discussion on which is the most valued from a technical and quality standpoint, since they all look the same visually. Philip Terry Graham (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)