User talk:Flamurai

•  Comment I considered geocoding this image, however due to the age of the photograph an exact location is not available, so I didn't want to misrepresent the location. The town names are given, so approximate coordinates could be determined if geocoding is necessary. – flamurai 06:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment I have geocoded to the best of my ability based on the location given on the photo and research on the battle. – flamurai 17:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment Images that are "upgraded" with guesstimated geocoding should indicate so. --Foroa 07:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment Thanks for the geocoding. The scope is very broad, and attracts competition from at least Image:Cheshire Regiment trench Somme 1916.jpg and Image:Trench construction diagram 1914.png. Would you consider narrowing to "an aerial view of World War I trench systems"? --MichaelMaggs 18:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

• I would be willing to change the scope, however I chose "trench systems" specifically to avoid competition with those photos, which I would scope as "trenches", since this photo shows systems of multiple trenches, while those show one specific trench. If others think this would be more clear with a more specific scope, I'd be willing to change it. – flamurai 18:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did wonder if you had chosen 'systems' very carefully. I still think, though, that at the very least Image:Trench construction diagram 1914.png could be so described. I would support if you did restrict to 'aerial view'. --MichaelMaggs 20:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Scope changed from World War I trench systems to World War I trench systems, aerial view {{{3}}}

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

– flamurai 21:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Support --MichaelMaggs 21:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support For illustrating articles of e.g. trenches of World War I, this is a very illustrative image. As this one is an aerial view of a system of trenches it is even better. Might be superseded by a photo from present day done with modern technology, but as trenches are hopelessly outdated today and trenches from World War I just are more interesting for the same reason, I support this image. --EPO 16:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support =>

•  Oppose Beautiful picture, but a portrait should capture the soul (=eyes) of the person. --Foroa 10:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I think that is a bit harsh. This illustrates the subject well, and is the best in its class. Hence, it should pass. This is not FP. --MichaelMaggs 19:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support This is a lovely, characteristic, and very natural image of the subject. PKM 05:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>

•  Support Meets criteria 1 to 4 and 6. Does not use information template but all the required information appears to be there. No Geocoding, but that is understandable. --MichaelMaggs 19:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment I refactored the info into the template. Geocoding is not possible since the location of the carrier when the photo was taken is unknown. – flamurai 21:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I would say a modern photo in colors would be much better, but as we do not have such one, I will support this candidate. --|EPO| ^da: 15:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support =>

•  Comment There are a number of competitors, however I chose this image because it clearly shows all aspects of the landing: the lunar module, rover, and astronaut. I considered the more general scope "a moon landing", but I felt the US flag in the photo limits the scope a bit. – flamurai 03:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
•  NeutralOnly one vote per reviewer. I assume it is the latter vote which should count. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2008 (UTC) This picture is well categorized (6). It has a full description in English unfortunately not using the Information template, but there is no information missing, while more translated text is needed for the other languages (4). It is an excellent illustration of a moon landing (3), and the scope is well chosen (2). Last but not least it seems to be to me the most valuable picture of a moon landing (1). If the description is updated I will support the image! -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment I can help with a german translation of the full description if somebody else provides the information template. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment The criteria do not require multiple translations of the description. All #4 says is, "Multi-lingual descriptions should use the appropriate language templates". That doesn't mean multi-lingual descriptions are required. – flamurai 02:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment I retract my neutral vote and changed it to support (see below). -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
• Info: I have added an {{Information}} template on the image page. -- Slaunger (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

 Support Thanks for the information template. Now I see also criterium (4) as fulfilled and give this image my support! -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

•  Support Danish translation added. --|EPO| ^da: 15:56, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support =>

•  Comment Unfortunate name as the German De:Glockenspiel word has several other meanings, while metalophon is too generic. --Foroa 09:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The scope could be changed to orchestral glockenspiel to clarify, but this seems needlessly limiting since if you go down the IWs for glockenspiel, en, es, eu, fr, fl, it, all use "glockenspiel", and no and sw use similar words. Obviously this is only for Latin languages. I would say, since Commons has a worldwide scope, this is the accepted worldwide meaning for the word. AFIAK it's accepted in the German-speaking music world, too: Mahler uses "Glocke/n" to refer to larger bells. – flamurai 12:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support - As far as I know "Glockenspiel" is the accepeted standard name for this particular type of metalophon, not only in German -- Alvesgaspar 10:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support The Danish word would be "klokkespil", which means the same thing. So I see no problems in this name. --|EPO| ^da: 16:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support =>