Commons:Valued image candidates/Norma Kamali coat at the Met (52728).jpg

Norma Kamali coat at the Met (52728).jpg

undecided

Image
Nominated by	— Rhododendrites talk |  on 2022-02-08 18:35 (UTC)
Scope	Nominated as the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Clothing designed by Norma Kamali
Used in	Global usage
Review (criteria)	Comment it is necessary to put in the scope the title of the work which accompanies the garment. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC) @Archaeodontosaurus: I'm not sure I know what you mean. What work accompanies the garment? This is the best depiction we have of clothing designed by Norma Kamali. Do you mean that we should have different scopes for each type of clothing they designed, even if we don't have images for them? Or that it is from a museum show (with many other designers)? — Rhododendrites talk |  19:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)  Comment This garment is comparable to a unique work of art. There is a title above the manequin. It is this title that must be put in the scope to make it specific to the image. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC) "Snugness" isn't the name of the garment (which does not have a name). The signs were the work of the curators for this exhibit ("A Lexicon of Fashion") rather than the designers. — Rhododendrites talk |  13:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)  Comment The scopes are too wide they have to be focused on what is shown. The name given for the exposure should suffice if added to the scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC) I'm not sure what you mean by name given for the exposure. The name of the exhibit? That would mean the same garment could be a VI if displayed in a different place, though? There are very few designers we have many pictures for. Usually it's just a couple, and there is a clear best representation. Scoping is a challenge. Hmmm. Another possibility is just category of clothing ("coat" here), but most of these kinds of images are whole ensembles, and not just one garment... — Rhododendrites talk |  13:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC) I think "ensemble" should be a valid scope when it's the clearest description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2022 (UTC) Result: 0 support, 0 oppose => undecided. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)