the harsh contrast and the light from above seem to be problems - other opinions? --Mbdortmund 16:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
IMO the light from above makes the image more dramatic, and I like it.--Mbz1 03:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
TRUE. But small file size means heavy jpg-compression... as the effect is barely visible here, I promote the image. Cayambe 20:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
To anwser your question, I have no other version (left). I don't really know about the small size, maybe I denoised it and the denoiser took an initiative (it is a rather old picture). --Eusebius 22:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC). Comment Ok, thanks for the feedback. --Cayambe 11:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Drummond Castle.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Support This image is the only one on Commons showing the two parts of the castle (according to en:Drummond Castle, "the oldest part is a tower-house" (ruined then rebuilt); "a large mansion was added on the other side of the courtyard in the 1690s"). Its resolution is good enough for the review size asked for a VIC. --Myrabella (talk) 05:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)