Commons:Valued image candidates/Ford Capri mit Gérard Larrousse, Nürburgring (1973-07-06 Spu).jpg

Ford Capri mit Gérard Larrousse, Nürburgring (1973-07-06 Spu).jpg

promoted

Image
Nominated by	Spurzem (talk) on 2022-03-23 11:13 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Gérard Larrousse with Ford Capri RS in the section „Karussell“ of Nürburgring 1973
Used in	Global usage
Review (criteria)	Question As we cannot see the driver, is the scope not better as the car, but mentioning the driver? Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:01, 23 March 2022 (UTC) That was my first thought. But then I decided to mention the driver first because there are only few pictures in its category. In addition, in captions in newspapers, the driver is usually mentioned first too, followed by the car. – I would have been very surprised if you had nothing to complain about and you will probably vote against. Do what you think you have to do. -- Spurzem (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2022 (UTC)  Best in Scope thank you for the explanations --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)  Comment IMO many of your scopes are written with too much description (too narrow) per COM:VIS that defines a suitable VI scope as “a generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable. Would you consider this suggestion? - Gérard Larrousse in Ford Capri RS, at Nürburgring 1973 --GRDN711 (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2022 (UTC) @GRDN711: Believe me, I have other problems than these scopes. Until recently, the picture had to be described briefly but as precisely as possible. Now a picture is suddenly worthless if you say what is on it. -- Spurzem (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)  Comment @Spurzem: Per COM:VIS, defining a suitable VI scope that is “a generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example” is a challenge. Scopes that are “too wide” may cover such a wide field that it may not be obvious why your image is more valuable than others. On the other hand, scopes layered with too much description (“too narrow”)vmay not define a sufficiently generic field. I have accepted your argument that driver and car are important here and have suggested a scope that is less wordy (less narrow) than your original but may be “just right” for your nomination. Will you consider using it instead? --GRDN711 (talk) 21:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)