It says in the criteria that if there is neither a proper category or Wikipedia article there should be no link. Could a proper name for a new category be "motorglider tachometers"? I think "Motometer tachometers" would be too narrow and that this image could be generic for motorgliders, but not all aeroplanes and definitly not just gliders. --V-wolf (talk) 10:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A Google search with a strict "motorglider tachometers" sends back only two echoes... linked to this nomination. I would say that the scope is too narrow. Further question: which features makes a "motorglider tachometer" different and recognizable from another tachometer? --Myrabella (talk) 07:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections, because I have never been into a cockpit/cabin of another type of aeroplane than motorgliders, but the instruments in the "regular aeroplanes" seems to be more complicated – but if they aren't I can widen the scope and "compete" with small Cessnas, giant Airbuses, or fighter jets. A tachometer in a car or on a motorcycle doesn't have a flight lenght calculator, so there must be some sort of difference between them and planes. Maybe we can get an expert opinion from someone with aeroplane experience, perhaps Airwolf or Towpilot? --V-wolf (talk) 10:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to me, it is the visible part of a motorglider tachometer, or the screen of a motorglider tachometer, but not a motorglider tachometer. What is hiden behind ?--Jebulon (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have a point. Is there any suitable scope for this tachometer display? Otherwise I have to withdraw, I guess, and just conclude that I at least have uploaded a picture that is used in a Wikipedia article. Always something. --V-wolf (talk) 15:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry. The "scope" question is a difficult one, unendless disputed and discussed. I think your image is a valuable one, but I don't really know if it is a good valued image candidate, according to the standards here (which I'm not sure I understand very well)--Jebulon (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any registered user can review the valued image candidates.
Comments are welcome from everyone, but neither the nominator nor the original image author may vote (that does not exclude voting from users who have edited the image with a view to improving it).
Nominations should be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. Please read those and the page on scope carefully before reviewing. Reviewing here is a serious business, and a reviewer who just breezes by to say "I like it!" is not adding anything of value. You need to spend the time to check the nomination against every one of the six VI criteria, and you also need to carry out searches to satisfy yourself on the "most valuable" criterion.
On the review page the image is presented in the review size. You are welcome to view the image in full resolution by following the image links, but bear in mind that it is the appearance of the image at review size which matters.
Check the candidate carefully against each of the six VI criteria. The criteria are mandatory, and to succeed the candidate has to satisfy all six.
Use the where used field, if provided, to study the current usage of the candidate in Wikimedia projects. If you find usage of interest do add relevant links to the nomination.
Look for other images of the same kind of subject by following the links to relevant categories in the image page, and to any Commons galleries.
If you find another image which is already a VI within essentially the same scope, the candidate and the existing VI should be moved to Most Valued Review (MVR) to determine which one is the more valued.
If you find one or more other images which in your opinion are equally or more valued images within essentially the same scope, you should nominate these images as well and move all the candidates to an MVR.
Once you have made up your mind, edit the review page and add your vote or comment to the review parameter as follows:
You think that the candidate meets all of the six mandatory criteria.
If the nomination fails one of the six criteria, but in a way that can be fixed, you can optionally let the nominator know what needs to be done using the {{VIF}} template.
Your comment goes immediately before the final closing braces "}}" on the page.
How to update the status
Finally, change the status of the nomination if appropriate:
status=nominated When no votes or only neutral votes have been added to the review field (blue image border).
status=supported When there is at least one {{Support}} vote but no {{Oppose}} votes (light green image border).
status=opposed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote but no {{Support}} votes (red image border).
status=discussed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote and one {{Support}} vote (yellow image border).
Remember the criteria: 1. Most valuable 2. Suitable scope 3. Illustrates well 4. Fully described 5. Geocoded 6. Well categorized.
The nominator is allowed to make changes in scope as the review proceeds, for example in response to reviewer votes or comments. Whenever a scope is changed the nominator should post a signed comment at the bottom of the review area using {{VIC-scope-change|old scope|new scope|--~~~~}}, and should also leave a note on the talk page of all existing voters asking them to reconsider their vote. A support vote made before the change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn.
