Support - Difficult to choose which one is better. I prefer the warmer.--MrPanyGoff 12:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Support - The windows at the end are not overexposed and the POV is off the centerline. Both make this a better depiction, I think (criterion #3). The color balance could be tweaked, but I don't think it is too far off. It is difficult to know without a grey reference surface in the field of view. --Walter Siegmund(talk) 02:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
"Ha" is "the" in Hebrew. I don't think there is any formal decision of how to write it in English. The first part of the name (Beth/Beit) can be written either way I think, but "Beit" is more accurate. And actually, you made a good point, because the name of the category here in Commons (with which I spelled the scope) is wrong, as well as the English article and I think also the German one (I'm not really sure about the German pronunciation). The correct spelling would be Beit Hatfutsot (like the official website of the museum suggests). Regards, Tomer T (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification. The scope has to link some category but doesn't has to be named word for word after it. So I think that the scope name here should be changed to Beit Hatfutsot Museum as in the official web site. --MrPanyGoff 08:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, now you can open a MVR with the two candidates.--MrPanyGoff 18:21, 2 June 2011 (UTC) Actually I'm going to do it so that your vote to be taken into consideration ;) --MrPanyGoff 18:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment Also here you should probably state that the geocoding is approximate given the google earth resolution of the area. Unless you of course found a better way to obtain the coordinates? W.S. 16:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose Not geocoded I think. W.S. 11:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC) Indeed, though you should probably state that the geocoding is approximate given the google earth resolution of the area. W.S. 15:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Done - Geocoded now.--MrPanyGoff 12:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Made by a wikipedian (I know it is not a mandatory nor a criterium, but...)
shows a part of the environment of the subject. -- Jebulon (talk)
Comment Why not scope=Santa Maria del Fiore Clock or The Florence Cathedral Clock.--MrPanyGoff 22:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment This subject is a very difficult case. Both photos are very good, detailed and gives great information about the decoration of the dial. But I'm not sure if they both depicts the subject well. I think that very important things for this clock are: 1.Location, 2.Scale and 3. Decoration. Both images give us good idea about "3" and no idea about "1" and "2". At first, I thought that this is a desk clock with size 15/15cm which is placed in some museum glass-case.--MrPanyGoff 23:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Location: Please see the names of the: file, category, nomination.+ geocode.
Scale: Please see the file description page. But I partially agree, that's why I prefer this one, which shows a part of the wall, and the pedestal.
Decoration: Do you wish I add "by Paolo Uccello" (even if you may read the "creator template" in the file description page) ?
Another important thing is the 24 hours dial, IMO... That's why I named it so in the scope name ;) !
A very difficult case is maybe more interesting than an easy one, isn't it ? ;)--Jebulon (talk) 01:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment - 1. Under the word "Location" I put not so elementary meaning. Almost everybody on this planet knows where is the Florence Cathedral even without geocode. The clock is a fragment of the whole architectural work of art. It is an inseparable piece of the interior ensemble. It has a specific place in the architectural composition. This is important and this I meant about location. I uploaded two photos showing the best representation of the subject, imo. Unfortunately, the technical quality is not so good. (here and here). These photos give us idea of Location, Scale and Decoration details. 2. As for the scope name, for me it is definitely Florence Cathedral Clock. --MrPanyGoff 07:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Comment . I'm sorry I disagree with almost all the comment just above.--Jebulon (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Support This image is of good quality and shows better the environment. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)