Commons:Valued image candidates/Martine Pouchain

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

Martine Pouchain

promoted
Image Martine Pouchain 2009 crop.JPG
Nominated by Eusebius (talk) on 2009-02-27 09:43 (UTC)
Scope Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Martine Pouchain
Review
(criteria)
  • I think it would be more valuable as a cropped version, which can be used as a portrait photo on say an infobox in an article. Landscape orientation is just wierd. Still keep the original, but make a crop as well as that. Jolly Janner (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done portrait crop. --Eusebius (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Geotag added. --Eusebius (talk) 10:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Come on, it's an easy one... Personality VI candidates seem to be less sexy than bugs and flies... ;-) --Eusebius (talk) 21:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Well, it's the best (and only) photo we have of her, but only one project even has an article on her (and that's a stub). Maybe it's just a case of systemic bias, I don't know. Rocket000(talk) 17:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
    Actually the existence of an (unchallenged) article on the subject is usually considered enough to justify the scope (it has been taken in the past as sufficient for personalities, there's a discussion somewhere in the talk page archive). The French article passes the "inclusion criteria" of the French Wikipedia and should not be nominated for deletion, according to me. Note that it's not my picture here, I'm not pushing it, I truly think there is no pb. --Eusebius (talk) 17:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
    Ok, that's why I didn't oppose. Although, use is usually a good indicator of it's value. I have been away for awhile so I'm not all that confident with my grasp of "value" here to vote either way. Rocket000(talk) 18:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
    Well, I'd write something more about her - if only I could find some more information. You won't even find her birth date on her web site ;) -- g91 (blubb?) 16:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
    We're talking about the quality of the encyclopaedia articles here, not about their relevance as we probably should (btw, I wouldn't put my birth date on my own website, even if I was worth an article, it's a personal choice, and even more personal for a woman :-) --Eusebius (talk) 09:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
    Ok. There might be more information soon since one of her books is nominated for the Prix des lycéens allemands (Price of the German High school students) and might have a good chance to win (I attended a jury once) in the final round which will take place in two days... -- g91 (blubb?) 22:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Surely a borderline case concerning Wikimedia project relevance, but it just makes it over my value bar. Illustrates the subject well, other criteria met. So I will be a little bold and support this one. --Slaunger (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 14:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)