Review
(criteria) |
 Support Fulfills all requirements IMO. Image description is quite detailed and informative, but only given in German (should be translated if possible). -- JovanCormac 15:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Oppose VI rules for churches scopes are really harsh:"Not any church is worth a Valued Image scope. Cathedral scopes are OK, but for other churches there should be a good reason, like being a pilgrimage place (is it?), being really famous (it doesn't seem to be the case, a quick search on :de:w with trier+ambrosius doesn't give anything in plain text about this church), being architecturally exceptional (a quick search with Thoma+architekt in :de:w doesnt't return any relevant link to the "F. Thoma" quoted in the image description)." So fails criterion 2 IMO, not famous enough to be a "suitably generic scope". --Myrabella (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment The point to nominate is, it's a former riding hall, wich would be extremly rare --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support If the interior is worth its own scope, why not the exterior? Yann (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Because what makes this church "being architecturally exceptional", as VI rules say, is to have been built from a former riding arena. This special characteristic is evident in the inside view (which thus deserves a scope), but absolutely not in the outside one, IMO. From outside, this neigbourhood church seems rather ordinary (and VI rules insist: "Not any church is worth a Valued Image scope. Cathedral scopes are OK", and so on. Personally, I find this rule too severe, but that's another debate.) --Myrabella (talk) 11:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose As Myrabella. Lycaon (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment New try after more than 2 years. --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support All crieteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Did the rules change since two years ago ? Not already. I'm sorry, but I agree with Myrabella, for now. The exterior view of this building does not deserve a scope IMO. We have to change the rules before, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Oppose Per Myrabella. cmadler (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It is a heritage monument of Rhineland-Palatinate --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Support I change my vote due to Berthold Werner's explanation. The fact it is an official heritage monument is a good reason for a scope. Best in scope indeed.--Jebulon (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as before.พ.s. 10:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Request Please add this new information in the file description. NB: There is a dead link in the German description; I guess it could be updated by this link : http://denkmallisten.gdke-rlp.de/Trier.pdf, but please check. --Myrabella (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply] Done --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Support There are really many cultural heritage monuments in Trier, and I still find the interior the most remarkable part of that church, but nevertheless I change my vote from oppose to support because 1) that image could have competed in WikiLove Monuments 2011 (if it had been taken in sept. 2011) 2) It is of value to WMF projects (used in de:WP for example) ") I am a member of Commons:Projet Monuments Historiques français and then interested in the largest possible coverage of heritage monuments in Commons and WP 4) being consistent with my own proposition of rewritten rule in this recent thread about scopes 4) hearing Slaunger's words that his root-idea of VI project wasn't to be very selective and that there can be very many VIs. By the way, maybe could we consider renominating this 2008 test VIC... --Myrabella (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC) P.S. - Last but not least: it is the best available image in the scope! --Myrabella (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
|
