Review
(criteria) |
 Support Useful, good scope  Oppose Very lopsided representation of the phenomenon egg. Fails criterion 3. พ.s. 22:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)(UTC) Support Thanks for improving my english vocabulary, I did not know the word lopsided ;). Anyway, I support this picture, for what it is: a vintage (late 19th century) image of egg illustrations. It is a tribute to old encyclopedists. Audubon's birds, Redouté's roses where not perfect, and maybe this picture is far from perfection for a scientist, but I think it is artistically valuable, interesting, eye catching (my taste), and illustrates well the chosen scope. --Jebulon (talk) 09:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC) Maybe some explanations in the file page, egg by egg and number by number, could have been helpful.--Jebulon (talk) 09:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment I acknowledge your assessment, but you are not following your the precious criteria rules. I am not to vote oppose when an argument is not specifically mentioned in the criteria, but when, as in this case, criteria are clearly not met (criterion 3 → illustrates well, criteria 4 → is fully described) then you are allowed to support. A topsy-turvy world indeed! พ.s. 10:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
-
- You are right, for part IMO. The criterium 3 seems to be met for me, but indeed, the criterium 4 is not, as I wrote myself. So I remove my support. But I don't oppose for now, because it is improvable. your precious criteria rules is offensive and useless. The rules of VI are not MY rules, they are the common rules, and have to be YOURS, and hopefuly precious for you too... And thanks for topsy-turvy, I knew the concept, but not the english words.--Jebulon (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Scope changed from Egg illustrations to Egg illustrations nineteenth century --Trongphu (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
Oppose I may still change my mind as I'm still not happy with the lopsidedness of the image, the incomplete description and the lack of a gallery. พ.s. 22:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Useful, good new scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose (for now) It appears that the nominator created a new subcategory to support this scope but did not populate the category. After working on it a little while, there are already more than 100 images that fit this category, with probably another 60 yet to add. Many of these are the extracted images from this file, but many are not. I think we need to take a closer look at this after the category is more fully populated. cmadler (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As far as I can tell the category is now populated with about 180 images (115 directly, 67 in a subcat; it's possibly I accidentally put some of the subcat images directly in the category also). cmadler (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
