* {{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'' [http://www.chateaudechantilly.com/en/galleries-of-paintings.p96.html] "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. --[[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 15:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
* {{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'' [http://www.chateaudechantilly.com/en/galleries-of-paintings.p96.html] "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. --[[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 15:36, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
* {{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. [[User:Wetenschatje|<font color="black">W.</font>]][[User talk:Wetenschatje|<font color="black">S.</font>]] 17:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
* {{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. [[User:Wetenschatje|<font color="black">W.</font>]][[User talk:Wetenschatje|<font color="black">S.</font>]] 17:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
:* {{comment}} Please help to calm this discussion. This is not the forum for allegations of violations of policies and guidelines on behavior. I agree that '''François Gérard, oeuvre''', or words to that effect, satisfies the criteria, but it's my opinion that [[:Category:Portrait of Bonaparte, First Consul, 1803, (François Gérard)|Portrait of Bonaparte as First Consul (by François Gérard)]] does also. I look forward to the comments of other reviewers. --[[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 18:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
several articles in many wikis (please see the file description page)
Reason
Re-nomination of a previous undecided one. Has its own category, used in many wikis, POTD in the french WP (July 21). Best version in "Commons" IMO. Complete caption and references. Geolocated. -- Jebulon (talk)
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]
Supporten: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]
Any registered user can review the valued image candidates.
Comments are welcome from everyone, but neither the nominator nor the original image author may vote (that does not exclude voting from users who have edited the image with a view to improving it).
Nominations should be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. Please read those and the page on scope carefully before reviewing. Reviewing here is a serious business, and a reviewer who just breezes by to say "I like it!" is not adding anything of value. You need to spend the time to check the nomination against every one of the six VI criteria, and you also need to carry out searches to satisfy yourself on the "most valuable" criterion.
Review procedure
On the review page the image is presented in the review size. You are welcome to view the image in full resolution by following the image links, but bear in mind that it is the appearance of the image at review size which matters.
Check the candidate carefully against each of the six VI criteria. The criteria are mandatory, and to succeed the candidate has to satisfy all six.
Use the where used field, if provided, to study the current usage of the candidate in Wikimedia projects. If you find usage of interest do add relevant links to the nomination.
Look for other images of the same kind of subject by following the links to relevant categories in the image page, and to any Commons galleries.
If you find another image which is already a VI within essentially the same scope, the candidate and the existing VI should be moved to Most Valued Review (MVR) to determine which one is the more valued.
If you find one or more other images which in your opinion are equally or more valued images within essentially the same scope, you should nominate these images as well and move all the candidates to an MVR.
Once you have made up your mind, edit the review page and add your vote or comment to the review parameter as follows:
You think that the candidate meets all of the six mandatory criteria.
If the nomination fails one of the six criteria, but in a way that can be fixed, you can optionally let the nominator know what needs to be done using the {{VIF}} template.
Your comment goes immediately before the final closing braces "}}" on the page.
How to update the status
Finally, change the status of the nomination if appropriate:
status=nominated When no votes or only neutral votes have been added to the review field (blue image border).
status=supported When there is at least one {{Support}} vote but no {{Oppose}} votes (light green image border).
status=opposed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote but no {{Support}} votes (red image border).
status=discussed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote and one {{Support}} vote (yellow image border).
Remember the criteria: 1. Most valuable 2. Suitable scope 3. Illustrates well 4. Fully described 5. Geocoded 6. Well categorized.
Changes in scope during the review period
The nominator is allowed to make changes in scope as the review proceeds, for example in response to reviewer votes or comments. Whenever a scope is changed the nominator should post a signed comment at the bottom of the review area using {{VIC-scope-change|old scope|new scope|--~~~~}}, and should also leave a note on the talk page of all existing voters asking them to reconsider their vote. A support vote made before the change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn.
