★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Chindia Tower. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
Support Caracter picture --Foroa (talk) 09:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment I would be nice with a heading on the geocode: Is it SE (looks so on Google maps)? -- Slaunger (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Info Actually it's more like NE if you ask me. I think this is the direction in which the image was taken, based on the corner of the pyramid at the base, and the angle of the ruined wall in the background, which looks quite a lot like the wall in the right side of the tower in that image I linked. Anyway, this heading parameter is only for Camera location, and I don't think we can accurately say where the camera was located.diego_pmc (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with your analysis regarding the heading. In that case the geolocation is not entirely correct as the heading looks more like SE based on the indicated camera position. Hmm... I think I will ask the creator. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
As you've noticed I already asked him. BTW, when I drew the arrow, I didn't think of the possible location of the camera. I would rather say that this is where the author might have stood. For details see CristianChirita's talk page. diego_pmc (talk) 10:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I think you are right in your analysis and I simply suggest you correct the geocode to that position. In any case it is far more accurate than the current position. Thank you for addressing this so thoroughly;-) -- Slaunger (talk) 20:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I just added the camera coordinates, and the heading (BTW did I add it right; it doesn't seem to do anything). Also the Commons logo still appears in the wrong location. will it update itself? diego_pmc (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
The heading wasn't added entirely correctly. I think I have corrected that. The location usually adjust to a new heading after some time. Strange that the position has not moved though. Have not tried moving position before, so I do not have any experience with that. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
The location fixed itself, as it seems. BTW, the author responded me on my English talk page. Take a look at the location. :D diego_pmc (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
..which shows you are a real geo-detective! Nice analysis! -- Slaunger (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Support Satisfies all criteria. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Result: 2 support
=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Neacșu's letter. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
Info This is the oldest available document written in Romanian language (at that time the Cyrillic alphabet was used in Romanian). Unfortunately there are only two versions of this document, and both of them are available at Commons. I think this is the better one. diego_pmc (talk) 20:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Question Should this image be geocoded?--Pere prlpz (talk) 09:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
It's a document, why should it be geocoded? diego_pmc (talk) 18:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The stated author (in the image page) is the one of the document, not the photographer. Idem regarding the copyright. This should be fixed; currently we have no information whatsoever on the copyright status of the photograph. If the geographic location of the letter is known (museum?), then I think it should be geocoded and stated in the description. --Eusebius (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The position of the Wikimedia Foundation on faithful photographic reproductions of public domain works is that they too "are public domain, and that claims to the contrary represent an assault on the very concept of a public domain". And this is pretty much a faithful photographic reproduction.
Also, about the geocoding. I believe it is irrelevant because the subject of the photograph is a piece of paper, and the coordinates would do nothing to help the user understand the subject of the picture. Also, there are other similar VIs, that have no geocoding, nor do they mention the author of the photograph. A few examples are Image:Psalms Scroll.jpg, Image:Vindication1b.jpg, Image:Racistcampaignposter1.jpg. Futhermore, the VI criteria states that "studio and other non-place-related shots" don't need geocoding. diego_pmc (talk) 15:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
You are right about the PD thing, but the tag used was not the right one. Fixed that. However, I still think that the photographer should be identified. Actually, I am pretty sure that the right of paternity cannot be renounced in some countries (such as mine), which means that even a PD photograph must be attributed. And I think it is just fair and logical, but maybe it is not a VI criterion. About geocoding: if the picture has been taken in the "usual" museum of the letter, why not state it in the description?? That kind of geographic information is relevant for a historical document. --Eusebius (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Eusebius: geocoding of usual place of document is useful.--Pere prlpz (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I would have asked for it as well. But I don't see where the problem is. If you know that the photograph was taken at the museum, just state it in the image page and put an approximate geotag. If you don't, or if it was taken elsewhere, then it is not so relevant and you can just say in which museum the letter can be found. Regarding the "author" field, if you know who the photographer is, just name her in the description. And if you don't... well, licensing is not a VI criterion. What do you think? --Eusebius (talk) 15:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I asked someone from that town to mark the location of the museum for me on Google Maps. About the author, unfortunatelly I can't find any info on that on the source website. diego_pmc (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
The address is "Str. Justitiei, nr. 7, Targoviste" but I cannot find a map of the town. The mention of the museum is enough to me, I guess. --Eusebius (talk) 18:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Justitiei St. is the horizontal street from the upper part of this image. I asked someone from that town to put a mark on the museum. diego_pmc (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
OK then, let's wait for the tag. --Eusebius (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I got it. I still have doubts about how useful this really is, or if it is necessary, since the others passed without it, but what the heck. Here it is. diego_pmc (talk) 18:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Support Thanks! --Eusebius (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Comment A question has been raised about the earlier document type candidates without geodata, which have been promoted. I think I have supported several of those without requiring geodata. IMO not having the geodata on those VIs is OK. The reason being that I consider them as studio shots. The underlying reason for this view is that IMO there is no single location which is the obvious choice. Should it be where the document was prepared (if known, and the preparation may have been done at several different locations), the location where it was found, or the location, where it can be found at the moment? For these types of images I am more in favor of an accurate image page linking to relevant Wimedia project content pages concerning these different types of locations. The individual geodata for those locations should then ideally (and, in fact, they often are) be associated to the Wikimedia content pages referred to. I think it is to strain the geodata requirement a little too much to require the type of geodata here. It is OK to request for information of where it can be found on the image page, but it should be the Wikipedia article about the museum, which is geocoded for these types of photos not the photo itself. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
OK... Maybe I've been a bit psychorigid here! --Eusebius (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
CommentsLooks very ok to me (already a FP). I think the demotion of a QI and the promotion of another are independent. --Eusebius 17:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
CommentsWouldn't that require a delisting process for QIs? Or did I miss that? I like my original version, too - I think the sky gives the picture some "breathing space" and I believe it to be QI-worthy --AlexanderKlink 18:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC) No discussion necessary, only a promo/decline vote. QI's are not delistable/ replacable. Lycaon 19:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC) * Excellent sharpnes. The tighter crop makes it more interesting in some respects, less so in others. In total still a QI. --Florian Prischl 23:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
