Comment I think that for the southern rose, a derivative of this image would be better. Perspective should also be corrected, for the sake of unity in the set. I might try to do something about it this week-end. Also, all three images should be geotagged properly. --Eusebius (talk) 07:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Eusebius: for the southern rose, an image including the "claire-voie" (I don't know the English word) below the main stained glass window would be more valuable. So thanks to him in advance if he managed to deliver a nice derivated work :-). In that case, I suppose that we could simply substitue the new image in the set, as a "Most Valued Set Review" is a concept that doesn't exist... at present. --Myrabella (talk) 04:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About the "claire-voie" (do you mean the lancets?), why add them for the southern and not the northern rose? Personally I'd leave them out, they're not part of the rose stricto sensu. --Eusebius (talk) 05:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I'd crop it, because the lancets are not fully displayed anyway. I'm quite open about the question of whether the lancets belong to the rose windows, but we sure should be consistent about it (N/S windows). --Eusebius (talk) 11:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help, my French friends :-) I corrected coordinates. Eusebius picture is superb. Is better than mine. I would like to be included in the set. How should I do? To withdraw the nomination and make a new one? Can I replace just one photograph in this set? Albertus teolog (talk) 20:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's still your picture! I've replaced the picture in the set, let's keep it simple... I have also added a link in the scope. I Support the candidature. --Eusebius (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not so convinced: in that alternative, the organ hides a larger part of the rose (Zodiac signs, labours of the months, vices and virtues—see the two first rings). Moreover, colors are less faithful, IMO. --Myrabella (talk) 16:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
