Commons:Valued image candidates/Jaguar SS 100, Bj. 1938, Etappe Weißenthurm (2013-05-04 Sp).JPG

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Jaguar SS 100, Bj. 1938, Etappe Weißenthurm (2013-05-04 Sp).JPG

promoted
Image
Nominated by Spurzem (talk) on 2022-05-16 17:17 (UTC)
Scope Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
ADAC Mittelrhein Classic 2013 in Weißenthurm; Jaguar S.S. 100 from 1938 in front
Used in Global usage
Review
(criteria)

 Oppose Scope is confusing and the COM:VIS "generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example" is not clearly stated. The subject appears to be the Jaguar S.S. 100 (1938) race car but scope link is the ADAC Mittelrhein Classic 2013 race, not the Category:SS Jaguar 100 for the car model. If the scope is the "Jaguar S.S. 100 (1938) model car at the ADAC Mittelrhein Classic 2013 race", this image (also taken by you) looks better and more valuable to me. --GRDN711 (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GRDN711: It is very difficult for me not to be abusive towards you. Your provocative know-it-all attitude is nasty bullying. -- Spurzem (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I agree with you, Spurzem, that the abuse is tiresome. I assume you are serious in your VI nominations, and I try to be conscientious in my reviews. When I comment or oppose (and there aren't that many), I always try to clearly state the reason. If you focus on addressing the issues raised by myself and others, I suspect you would be more successful with your VI nominations. --GRDN711 (talk) 20:54, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GRDN711: Save your smugness and stop treating me like a silly little schoolboy. You disgust me. -- Spurzem (talk) 07:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The negative vote by GRDN711 is understandable to those with English as a native language. It is not an abuse. The scope is poorly worded. It would have been better to ask for a change of wording first, then oppose if nothing happens. I suggest that @GRDN711: acknowledges this then @Spurzem: can apologise. If Spurzem does not apologise and withdraw his insult of GRDN711 I will post a User Complaint. Abuse has no place here on Wikipedia. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Charlesjsharp: I see no reason to apologize for being bullied and treated like a dumb boy by some users and especially by GRDN711 for weeks. -- Spurzem (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what "in front" means in the phrasing of the scope. Is the Jaguar in front? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What others should it be? -- Spurzem (talk) 07:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't completely clear to me because of the grammar. I'd suggest a minor edit, replacing ", in front Jaguar S.S. 100 from 1938" with "; Jaguar S.S. 100 from 1938 in front". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Spurzem, do you mind if I make this slight rephrasing? The word order of the scope bugs me as not really standard English, and as it wouldn't change anything about the meaning (or intended meaning) of the scope, no revoting would be needed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: I don't mind, but I don't understand the point. -- Spurzem (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's just a small question of standard English word order. Thanks for your flexibility and  Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The scope is OK for me, the image anyway. --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Normally, I would have just commented with a scope change request but just as clarity for all, there are two issues in my oppose – one fixable and the other not.
    2013-05-04 (9613b) Jaguar SS 100, Bj. 1938
The scope with this nomination is confusing and I proposed "Jaguar S.S. 100 (1938) model car at the ADAC Mittelrhein Classic 2013 race" with a scope link to Category:SS Jaguar 100 as a more suitable scope and an easy fix.
The second issue is that with this better scope (or the original confusing one), IMO there is also a better and more valuable image take by Spurzem for this nomination. I would be receptive to listening to a further case for this image, but consider the other one to be better (same car model, less clutter in the background) and more valuable.
IMO the best path forward for VI success would be to withdraw this image and renominate the better one with the revised scope. --GRDN711 (talk) 17:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GRDN711: I don't know why you don't understand me; maybe it's because of my poor English. The picture here gives an impression of an event, the other shows a car model, which can however be seen in both photos. -- Spurzem (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I generally find your English to be excellent and did not get that impression from your original scope. Suggest you change this image scope to reflect what you say - a scope of the event - "ADAC Mittelrhein Classic" with a scope category link to "Category:ADAC Mittelrhein Classic". Remove the extra superfluous descriptive elements about the Jaguar car, or include them in the image description. If you ever have any questions or want clarification on any of my comments, you can reach out to me on my talk page.
You might also consider nominating the other image for VI for the car model at the race as it is a good image. --GRDN711 (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Jaguar_SS_100,_Bj._1938,_Etappe_Weißenthurm_(2013-05-04_Sp).JPG&oldid=658412936"