Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Stability

•  Support Good and consistent series, such series might be easier to handle here as a gallery such as stability. --Foroa (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support => Promoted.

•  Comment Please link scope (COM:VISC), if possible, and add geolocation or claim an exemption. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Info Thanks for you comment. The image has no geocode because it is a studio work. I have linked the scope, but there isn't very much on commons yet where I could link to... -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support This image illustrates two articles on dewiki; it is a notable topic. Other criteria are met except geocoding for which a valid exemption is claimed. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment Image has no geocode because there is obviously no relation to a specific location on earth. –– Dr. Schorsch (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment If the scope is “Principle of a tactile profilometer” image is the best, but the real scope is “Profilometers” and the best image is that of the machine. Change the scope? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:46, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support This file is used in en:Roughness and on two other projects; I think the subscope is fine. It may be better worded as "Profilometry". This image satisfies 5 criteria with a valid exception claimed for geocoding. It is important to recognize artwork as especially valuable in explaining concepts and mechanisms. I don't find the photograph of the machine as valuable as this one.Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment Thank you for your support Walter! I have choosen the scope as "principle of a tactile profilometer" because the picture is not showing a real profilometer but explaning it's working principle and it's fundamental properties. As I understood linking the scope is only good practice to allow reviewers to find competitive images easier. In my understanding the real scope is given by the text and not by the link. Anyway there is no category or gallery principle of tactile profilometers I could have linked to. Am I misinterpreting the VI guidelines doing so? –– Dr. Schorsch (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

   Comment COM:VISC lists "A visually distinct type or significant aspect of an object" (example 2) as a suitable scope, so I think it is fine. Its use in articles on three projects demonstrates that it is a significant aspect and a diagram is visually distinct from a photograph of the machine. Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

•  Info I have annotated the picture to allow quicker understanding. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment Perhaps you could call the scope profilometry? 99of9 (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

   Comment This broader scope would include images of surface profiles, photographies of profilometers, optical profilometers, applications of profilometers, etc.. I think this is to broad for a scope. That was the reason why I have choosen the "principle" scope. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

   Comment I agree with the current scope, "principle of a tactile profilometer", having considered more fully my earlier suggestion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

•  Info No geocode because there is no relation of the drawing to a specific location on earth. Link of scope is not identic to scope because I don't know a gallery or category on commons that is about the principle of photograms. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment I'd suggest a small amendment in the description: adding that the result depends also on the transparency of the objects (not only on their distance to the film). Semi-transparent objects give grey tones. --Myrabella (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

   Comment Thank you, that is a good suggestion. I wanted to keep the image description simple, because the details are explained in the related articles. But this information can be added easily. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Scope changed from Principle of a photogram's development to Principle of a photogram's exposure Myrabella suggested a change of the scope to be clearer. Development is not only the process of the creation of something but also the chemical film development. --Dr. Schorsch (talk) 15:00, 1 March 2010 (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 Quite OK to me. About the scope: "Principle of the photogram" might be simpler and sufficient? --Myrabella (talk) 17:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

   Comment Thanks for your support! "Principle of the photogram" sounds a bit missleading to me, like the principle of a specific photogram. Maybe a native speaker can give us a hint on this. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

 Comment It sounds a bit like "principle of the steam engine" to me (see ) but you're right, let's ask a native speaker! --Myrabella (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

 Comment I am a native English speaker and can easily be misunderstood () so may not be the best person to comment. However "Principle of a photogram's exposure" seems ok to me but I do think "Principle of the photogram" is both simple and effective. I have also amended the English in the notes slightly. I hope that helps, regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Scope changed from Principle of a photogram's exposure to Principle of the photogram Thanks for your comments! I think this is a good solution for the scope. I would kindly ask Myrabella to confirm her vote after this scope change. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2010 (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 I confirm my support. --Myrabella (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

•  Info No geocode, because there is no specific location on earth associated to this figure. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Meets all the criteria. Good to have it! --MichaelBueker (talk) 23:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

•  Info This picture exists in a couple of translations:
• File:Sonar Principle-cs.svg
• File:Sonar_Principle_EN.svg
• File:Sonar_Principle_ES.svg
• File:Sonar Principle-sv.svg

I decided not to nominate this as a valued image set, since there is no real difference in the drawing itself beside the translation. I suggest to do the VI review on the (original) german version and to promote all translation if successful. Tell me if I am wrong. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 13:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

•  SupportIt does appear to be the best image in scope, the other criteria are met. --MichaelBueker (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment As a VI is "the most valuable illustration" of its kind, there is only one picture labelled by scope. The other versions in various languages couldn't be promoted if this one was chosen. I would rather support the English version because it can be understood more widely, I guess. --Myrabella (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

   Comment Hi Myrabella! That was my question above: Is the difference in the images big enough to make it an Image Set? I thought rather not, but maybe this is the better way to handle it. My target was to have all images promoted, so it becomes clear to all language wikis that this is a VI. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Dr. Schorsch! I am afraid that it would overflow the VI sets purpose. English has been the usual "working language" of the VI project until now (rules indicate for instance: "An English description is preferred although not essential" or, about scope: "In the future, scopes should be internationalized, embedding links in different languages. In the meantime, please limit cross-project links to the English Wikipedia"). Let's take some advice => I am going to ask the question on the VIC talkpage. --Myrabella (talk) 22:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done: see Commons_talk:Valued_image_candidates/candidate_list#Internationalized_diagrams_and_VI. The discussion is ongoing. --Myrabella (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

•  Oppose - For now. For a simple illustration like this one I think that quality (sophistication) could and should be higher. What I don't like is the lettering (too large and too close to the arrows) and the arrows. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Satisfies the criteria in my opinion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

 Info New annotations translated in French ! ;)--Jebulon (talk) 15:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

•  Support I agree. This version is more informative. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support per Walter Siegmund.----Jebulon (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support more informative --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment Must connect the scope to the category that contains the image --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment Thanks for the hint. In fact there was no category for this type of measurement instruments. The metrology category tree is still quite incomplete. Therefore I had to create a new category for skin metrology instruments, which is still a too broad category for this image, because there are a lot of instruments measuring on skin (e.g. Skin temperature, skin colour, skin gloss, skin elasticity, etc.) -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
• Fixed category name

 Comment Look at the modified syntax of the scope. On the form it is acceptable on the other hand it is not a measuring instrument that is shown but an explanatory diagram of the principle of measurement. This is what the scope must contain. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

 Comment Thanks for your recommendations, it is just too long ago that I was here last time. I have changed the category according to your recommendations. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 15:55, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Support Used & useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

 Support best in scope. --MB-one (talk) 09:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

•  Support best in scope, useful description in several languagesEzarateesteban 11:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

 Support useful, best in scope --Ezarateesteban 11:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Previous reviews

•  Info Renomination after changing scope. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment scope does not match image. Where is the reading? (Charlesjsharp) 22:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

•  Comment Please see the overlayed information boxes for the reading. -- Dr. Schorsch (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

•  Support Ok for me, good didactic presentation--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)