Review
(criteria) |
Previous reviews
 Comment Thanks for having created a specific category as requested in the previous review. A reliable reference about the fact that "for the first time on a portrait, he's wearing the famous green uniform of "petite tenue de Colonel de Chasseurs" might gain my support. --Myrabella (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose Sorry, nothing has changed for me. A single painting (with maybe a very few very famous exceptions, such as the Mona Lisa of which umpteen versions have been circulating) should not make a scope. Maybe this is representative for the oeuvre of François Gérard (whom I never heard of before) of for N. Bonaparte.? W.S. 15:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Support The usefulness of this label is to quickly find a good photograph categrory will illustrate, at best, the theme of the category. From this point of view I find it legitimate to award the label for that image. As it is legitimate for the award Marphysa sanguinea even if the animal is not in full. There are rules and spirit of the rules, a little common sense and mutual understanding will improve our work. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Laisse tomber, j'abandonne... Et le projet aussi, d'ailleurs (bis). Place aux vers de vase incomplets et au consensus mou, donc ? Tu es très (trop) gentil mais là, ça suffit je crois. Je mets trop de moi-même dans tout ça, et un jour je vais dire (pire: écrire) des choses qu'il sera facile de juger inacceptables, et j'aurai tort, bien sûr. C'est inutile d'en arriver là, le mieux est donc de vider les lieux. Mon sentiment profond est que ce projet n'est pas viable en l'état, et qu'il est vicié à la base. Je ne vois par exemple aucun intérêt à distinguer des sujets, quels qu'ils soient, y compris des animalcules, qui sont seuls dans leur catégorie, quand on ne peut visiblement pas distinguer entre trois images d'un même sujet au moins aussi parlant et instructif, au motif que WS n'a jamais entendu parler de François Gérard, et qu'il était visiblement aux aguets sur ce coup-là. C'est donc que le truc n'est pas au point, et comme je ne peux pas lui mettre physiquement mon poing dans la gueule, j'en reste là. Je prédis qu'à court terme, WS-Lycaon-Biopics, ou quel que soit son pseudo, actuel ou prochain, va mettre la main définitivement sur les VI, pour ne conserver que ce qui l'agrée, et rejeter le reste. C'est bien entamé je crois.--Jebulon (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are a very aggressive person at times. I just state my opinion and that is my right. You have the right to argue and discuss that opinion. You do not have the right to attack people because of their opinion. I do not attack the person Jebulon or whoever he might be, but I share my thoughts on a VI proposal. I advice you to be a bit more mellow and not take any critics personal, as you have been to often lately :-/ W.S. 16:56, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Support en:François Gérard was a major French portrait painter, almost by definition since he was commissioned to paint Bonaparte. "Not every work of art is worth a Valued Image scope. A scope is justified for instance if the work is the most significant work (or one of the most significant works) of an artist having an article on its own on any Wikipedia, or if it is a seminal work in some way." (Commons:Valued_image_scope#Works_of_art) This work is given special mention in the description of The Tribune room of Château and its Condé Museum [1] "The Portrait of Napoléon Bonaparte was painted during the Consulate (1799 - 1804) by Gérard, and is a precursor of the form of physical model used to represent the Emperor Napoléon in later paintings." Consequently, I think this scope satisfies the criteria. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So the foul-mouthing and even physical threats of Jebulon were not necessary? All it takes is for non-volatile users to voice there opinion and argue their POV. Everyone should be able to voice his/hers ideas without being attacked or threatened. Thanks Walter for you message above, although I still do not agree with the arguments (the painting is not even mentioned in en:François Gérard). Don't you actually agree that this could be a scope such as François Gérard, oeuvre? But of course I yield to a majority vote. W.S. 17:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
