Most images relating to Walton (d 1974) are subject to copyright. However this image is free to use due to Irish Freedom of Panorama laws. Also it is an interesting image. -- Martinvl (talk)
*Oppose for now, as I think that the description in the image file for this work of art should include the name of the piece (Apples and Atoms I think), the artist's name (Eilís O’Connell) and the date of the work (2013?) and that the scope should, as is usual here for works of art, be the title of the work and the artist's name. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@DeFacto: Your comments are noted. Thank you for the information regarding the sculptor - no mention of her was made on the plaque alongside the sculpture (which I also photographed for my own reference purposes). I have updated the description to reflect your note and I found a suitable citation which I have included in the description. I also noted your comments about the scope of the file concerned. Since the sculpture was commissioned to commemorate Walton's life rather than to present a work of art by O'Connell, I think it more appropriate that Walton's name be associated with the scope rather then O'Connell's name. Also in accordance with the page Commons:Valued image scope, the scope that I have chosen is generic - there could well be other memorials to commemorate Walton, but this one is the best (at least in Commons). Martinvl (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see more information reflected in the description. This is also an interesting case and I'd like another person to weigh in on their opinion of the formatting of a scope for a work of art commissioned to commemorate someone else. I first thought of this along the lines I believe Martinvl thought but when thought of as a work of art DeFacto's points are entirly valid. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as the file description is good now I've struck my 'oppose'. As for the scope, I'm not going to oppose over that, although I would prefer to see it less general to allow room for other, as yet uncovered, monuments to Walton to have VIs too. With regard to the scopes of old VIs, I wouldn't necessarily take them as precedents as we know that best practice evolves, rather than is prescribed, here. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The status of artwork is obvious. The scope must give the name of the work and the name of the author. We would be rude people if we did this insult to a lady. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Archaeodontosaurus: In my view any description of a work of art (including a VI scope) should reflect any notice that accompanies that work of art. We should use our own description only if that proves insufficient. In this case, I have added a photograph of the notice that accompanies this particular work of art to the main description. You will notice that it is engraved into the plinth of the sculpture and contains Walton's name, but not the name of the sculptress. Martinvl (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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".
@Sixflashphoto and Archaeodontosaurus: I have changed the scope of my VI submission "Ernest Walton Memorial, Dublin.jpg". User:Sixflashphoto will need to reconfirm his/her "support" vote for the vote to stand. Archaeodontosaurus might like to reconsider his "oppose" vote. Martinvl (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
