Commons:Valued image candidates/Dunstaffnage chapel (interior).JPG

Dunstaffnage chapel (interior).JPG

promoted

Image
Nominated by	Eusebius (talk) on 2009-12-19 17:33 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Dunstaffnage Chapel
Used in	Global usage
Reason	I'm not really sure the "interior" subscope is necessary. The exterior view is of little interest IMO. -- Eusebius (talk)
Review (criteria)	Comment With "detailed stonework of outstanding quality" dating from the 13 century, it seems notable to me, but not so much so that a subscope is warranted. I found a paragraph on this ruin in enwiki and a short article on nlwiki. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Having an article on its own on a Wikipedia" is a sufficient condition for certain types of scopes, such as natural places, and I took that as a reference for nominating (with the nl article in mind). It is true that this condition is not mentionned for buildings. --Eusebius (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC) I think we are in agreement about the "Dunstaffnage Chapel" scope. My question is whether "Dunstaffnage Chapel (interior)" is merited. I think you questioned this in your comment (above), also. Are you willing to change the scope to "Dunstaffnage Chapel" (without the parenthetical "interior"? Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Sure, if you agree with me, after having seen the picture, that the exterior view is not so significant. Mostly, it fails to show the ruinous aspect of the chapel. I change the scope. --Eusebius (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Scope changed from Dunstaffnage Chapel (interior) to Dunstaffnage Chapel Eusebius (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC) 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a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".  Support Meets all six criteria, in my judgment. The revised scope is good. Walter Siegmund (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Eusebius (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)