Commons:Valued image candidates/East Asian calligraphy's tools

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

East Asian calligraphy's tools


Four illustrations with short annotations/explanations for the East Asian calligraphy's tools. Asian tradition talk about the « Four Treasures of the Study » (Chinese: traditional 文房四寶, simplified 文房四宝, Pinyin: Wénfáng sì bǎo, Japanese: 文房四宝, Bunbō shihō) or Four Friends of the Study (Korean: 문방사우(文房四友) "Mun bang sa woo") for the brush, ink, paper and ink stone. The upper set of Ink relate image merge Ink [stick] and Ink stone, while I added an Seal relate illustration with Seal and Seal paste, which are also need to finish a work by signing it. These diagrams are intended to be « 4 key facts diagrams » for the subject East Asian calligraphy's tools.

NB: Please notice me if there is any misspelling to quickly correct.

Nominated by Yug (talk) on 2010-06-05 12:52 (UTC)
Scope Nominated as the most valued set of images on Wikimedia Commons within the scope:
East Asian calligraphy tools
  • The genitive wording looks unfamiliar to me - would calligraphy tools be better? (talk) 11:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
    You mean "East Asian calligraphy tools" is better ? I don't know, I'm French :] Yug (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
    Like most reviewers. I'm German, don't know for sure either. (talk) 09:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
    Respelled and linked scope. Someone ready to review? (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A nice serie of technical scheme with basic explanations, nice. Graphic quality good. Clarty is good. The scope is thus completely covered. Nice illustations for teaching usages. All Commons:Valued_image_criteria are satisfied. -- Yug (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry, Yug, you can't vote for your own nomination, because according to VI rules, "neither the nominator nor the original image author may vote". --Myrabella (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
      • ... nobody vote.... ;( Yug (talk) 08:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose =>
undecided. Lycaon (talk) 07:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Per request. Lycaon (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
  • I frankly don't understand and I'm pretty confused, I did reada lot of sources + spent likely ~15 hours on these images, here, the only meaningful comment was '"East Asian calligraphy tools" [may be] better [than East Asian calligraphy's tools]', all Commons:Valued_image_criteria seems satisfied, but now the vote is announced closed. That's don't make sense, and that's time consuming for no efficientcy: there was no vote ! no review ! Yug (talk) 08:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC) (pretty confused)
    • @ Yug: I would have liked to review it, but I was a bit short of time just now (some other demanding reviews...) Anyway I need to document myself and/or ask the opinion of more specialized contributors, here or in WP. Feel free to renominate the set in a few days. --Myrabella (talk) 08:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
    • @ Lycaon: reviewing sets is often more difficult and time-spending than simple VICs; in the last past months, we used to let VIC sets open for a larger period, until they had been reviewed. --Myrabella (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
      • You want me to revert? I could. Nothing was moving here and time had passed, so.... Lycaon (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Yes (if it isn't too late), thanks for proposing it. --Myrabella (talk) 09:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
    Still no real review yet...
    What I find confirmed is that it's appropriate to summarize all East Asian calligraphy traditions.
    Symbol support vote.svg Support. (talk) 12:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    Sorry, Myrabella is right, there are some spelling and wording issues. And now I think about the text, I question if an illustration which contains so much text is in the scope of VI at all? (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
    I didn't made this set as 'pure' illustrations for wikipedia articles, but also as able to be a stand alone kit. Commons is an database of illustrations, and schemes with clear explanations included should not be exclude, this kind of illustration also have their advantages. The complexity of brush fabrication and paper usage's requested such short texts. Yug (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Impressive work, clear schemes, documentation provided but some issues to be fixed (misprints, some ineffective links, categorisation). I am going to discuss these points in your talk page, if you agree (but not tonight). Temporary Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, until fix. --Myrabella (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Ok, thanks Myrabella for praises and your review !
      • Categorization: ✓ Done, fixed.
      • Sources-Links: ✓ Done, fixed, cleaned up, I also added one source.
      • Spelling: Is there that much misspellings to be impossible to give me corrections such : « 02: Chineze → Chinese ; was made with → used » ? or are you planing a radical rewording ? If that's this, I encourage you to install Inkscape and simply make the changes, that will go faster. Otherwise, I will have more free time in 1-2 weeks (after my final exams) to collaborate with you and finish that. : ] Yug (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Some further remarks in French in your talk page. --Myrabella (talk) 22:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
        • Noone(?) of us is a native English speaker. I can say that some sentences look wrong to me, and I can understand them only with educated guesses what is meant, but can't give authoritative corrections. (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
          • I intend to ask a native English speaker to read-through :-) But there's another question to be discussed about the scope first, a fr:WP contributor having suggested to precise it in "Chinese-based calligraphy tools". I propose to close this VISC for the moment, and to renominate it when the remained issues will be fixed. --Myrabella (talk) 04:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok to close it, fix (English help planed), and renominate very soon. ;) Yug (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Result: 0 support, 1 oppose =>
declined. (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)