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: trumpet stand.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Comment In the first previous review, the nominator wondered whether the chosen scope wouldn't be too narrow. One could spontaneously answer that yes, this scope is too narrow, but after reading of VI rules, I am not so sure. VI rules for objects scopes just say: "Examples of suitable scopes: [...] A visually distinct type or significant aspect of an object", and give the example of "Car park ramps", with an image nominated within that scope. "Car park ramps" is a very narrow scope, IMO; there is neitheir close related category in Commons nor dedicated article in any wikipedia about that specific topic, unless I'm wrong. So a "Trumpet stand" scope might be acceptable if we refer to that example and the nominated image would illustrate it well. In the second previous review, a reviewer addded: "Here is a suggestion I believe would substancially improve the value of the image: merge this picture with another one showing the trumpet in its stand." This suggestion could be carried out if necessary, with a VI set joining the nominated image and a (to-do) cropped image derivated from File:3trompettes.jpg, showing the stand in use. Note: the nominaed image is presently the only one in Commons showing a musical instrument stand alone. So perhaps a broader scope "Musical instruments stand" could be acceptable too, as the related category now exists. --Myrabella (talk) 09:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your work and review. Honestly, I don't know whether the scope is too narrow or not. It looks borderline to me, I rely on the reviewers' evaluation. About the suggestion of adding a trumpet to the picture: I have renominated when it became obvious that I wouldn't have the time to do this nicely. I think it falls in the category "some hypothetic image could be better, but this one is the best we have so far". About the suggestion to move the scope to "Musical instruments stand", I'm not really fond of it: stands for other instruments may have very different looks, and this picture doesn't illustrate this potential variety. --Eusebius (talk) 09:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I will support if someone manages to insert this image in a pertinent way in at least one article of any wikipedia, not simply in a gallery but with at least some relevant words in main text. Not so easy. Try "trumpet", "brass instrument", "music instrument accessories" (e.g. an article about "Stand" doesn't exist yet in fr:Catégorie:Accessoire de musique). In a less direct approach, I wasn't able to find an article about "K&M" or "König & Meyer" which is the company producing this object. I know that the insertion in a wikipedian article is not a commitment in VI rules, but it could be a help to decide the acceptance of "borderline" scopes. --Myrabella (talk) 11:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Support I'm fine with the scope. It's a distinct enough object to be worth documented, and that alone makes it relevant enough, regardless of a current use in Wikipedia. -- H005 09:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Support By far the best in the category. All other criteria met. Lycaon (talk) 06:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Support Yes, the best in the category. May I suggest to amend the scope in "Cathédrale Saint-Samson de Dol-de-Bretagne", as it is the present name of this French commune?--Myrabella (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
With pleasure... I'll even rename the cat. --Eusebius (talk) 07:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Comment There are some disturbing birds in the sky (I think it are birds) --Berthold Werner 16:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it's birds. They could be removed, is it really necessary? --Eusebius 16:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The birds do not disturb me at all - it is a good image. I do feel there is a slight tilt though (to the left)? --Herbythyme 16:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The perspective makes the tilt difficult to judge (impossible to shoot from the axis). I based my tilt correction on the central vertical line of the building, which should be vertical. But I'm ready to try another angle. --Eusebius 20:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC).
The slight perspective problems are acceptable here IMO. Therefore QI. --Cayambe 15:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)