Commons:Valued image candidates/Motorvrachtschip KON-TIKI verlaat de Houtribsluizen. 07-03-2022. (d.j.b) 02.jpg

Motorvrachtschip KON-TIKI verlaat de Houtribsluizen. 07-03-2022. (d.j.b) 02.jpg

promoted

Image
Nominated by	Famberhorst (talk) on 2022-03-16 16:27 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Kon-Tiki (ship, 1980) leaves the Houtribsluizen (Lelystad). It is the south side of the Houtrib locks and Kon-Tiki sails towards Oostvaardersdiep.
Used in	Global usage
Review (criteria)	Support Interesting and useful image -- Spurzem (talk) 17:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)  Oppose While this is a good quality image, IMHO it is not the most valuable. First, per COM:VIS, the scope is too narrow and should match the linked category with a claim that this is the most valuable image of the Kon-Tiki (ship, 1980) - no location needed. Even with a more appropriate scope, I find this other image ENI 02327007 KON-TIKI (03).JPG shows this ship better and consider it more valuable than the one nominated. --GRDN711 (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)  Oppose Scope is too narrow to be useful, per GRDN711. The image is also less focused on the ship than the locks. On a side note the description is also questionable: 'Houtribsluizen' is not explained, and is not clear in which direction it 'leaves' (i.e. towards Markermeer). --ELEKHHT 05:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC) @GRDN711: You are comparing two completely different images that cannot be compared. I don't understand the intention of your criticism. -- Spurzem (talk) 15:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)  Done. I have adjusted the description of the Kon-Tiki in connection with the passage of the lock.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)  Comment @Famberhorst: @Spurzem: There are two key statements in COM:VI and COM:VIS that describe how to define a suitable scope for VI nomination of any image. Per COM:VI “Valued images, on the other hand, are those that are the most valuable of their kind for use in an online context, within other Wikimedia projects.” Per COM:VIS “Note that scope is not a simple description of your image. Rather, it defines a generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example.” Adding even more description to a scope that already has too much description (scope too narrow) will not help here. A valued image must define a generic field or category within which the image is the most valuable example. With this image, a more suitable scope (not too narrow or too wide, but just right) would be “Kon-Tiki (ship, 1980)” that defines a generic field or category for all images of this ship. Unfortunately, IMHO, there is a more valuable image that shows the entire ship for a “Kon-Tiki (ship, 1980)” scope (with same linked category), and it is not this one which shows only the bow view squeezed into a lock. Hopefully, this clarifies why, regretfully, I remain opposed to this VI nomination. --GRDN711 (talk) 00:18, 18 March 2022 (UTC) @GRDN711: You may mean well, but be so kind and don't try to impose your opinion on us. Take a close look at the picture and you will see that it is not just a ship that is supposed to be portrayed in a beautiful way. -- Spurzem (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)  Comment @Spurzem: This is a good image but not every image is VI. As I have been clear in my references to COM:VI and COM:VIS, the scope is not adequately defined for VI (too narrow) and if it was better defined, there is a more valuable image of this ship (which I have identified), that shows the whole ship rather than just the bow. Valued Image is a consensus process. If I am regarded as incorrect in my thinking on this, others will out-vote me in support. --GRDN711 (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC) *Note: I could create the "Wood rib locks" category. Then it could possibly become: (A freighter leaves the "Houtribsluizen" on the south side.)--Famberhorst (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC) * Comment @Famberhorst: Defining an acceptable scope is not about adding layers of description or categories until you get to one where your nominated image might be considered unique. If that were the case, all images in Commons would qualify as being unique and there would be no need for this VI rating system. Instead, per COM:VICR, a Valued Image must meet 6 specific criteria of which probably the most difficult (I struggle with it often) is number 2 - defining a suitably generic VI scope: “2. Is nominated as being the most valuable within a suitably generic scope.” A separate guide - COM:VIS, was added to help with further explanation. A suitable VI scope must define “a generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example”. Layered description within a scope does not help in defining a VI scope as being suitably generic (too wordy; too narrow). A linked Commons category can be an aid to evaluating the image as being most valuable for VI but is not the same as being the generic field nominated as the VI scope. Defining a suitable VI scope (not too narrow; not too wide; just right) is a challenge. If you change the VI scope for this image from “Kon-Tiki (ship, 1980)” to "Wood rib locks", the image can be re-evaluated for VI with the claim of being the most valuable example of “Wood rib locks” at that time. --GRDN711 (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2022 (UTC) Unbelievable! I have seldom read a larger "splitting of hairs". Apparently, this is not about interesting photos, but about a description of the image that certain people like. -- Spurzem (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:20, 24 March 2022 (UTC)  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:38, 24 March 2022 (UTC) Result: 3 support, 2 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)