Commons:Valued image candidates/Klagemauer.JPG

Global usage

•  Comment One can hesitate with a closer view of the wall itself, like File:Jerusalem Western Wall BW 1.JPG by instance. Other reviewers' opinion welcome--Myrabella (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  This was already a vic: Commons:Valued image candidates/Jerusalem Western Wall BW 1.JPG --Berthold Werner (talk)

•  Comment I think a crop of this picture would be nice, in order to make the Wall more prominent in the image. I'd crop on either side of the dome and at about the middle of the Al Aqsa mosque. --Eusebius (talk) 09:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Comment Ok - i can crop the central part with the wall, al-aqsa and the dome - the building at the left will be gone. What do you think ? In this picture i wanted to show the whole area - to show that there is not only the wailing wall in jerusalem, there are also the places that are holy for muslims too. So far the intension. Sheepdog85 (talk)

  Your image in itself is nice. I don't ask you to alter it, just to upload the crop as another version. The idea behind the suggestion I have made is that if it is used to illustrate the wall, then the wall must be more important in size in the picture. It is only one reviewer's opinion. --Eusebius (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Instead of a crop you can use this photograph: File:Western-wall-plaza.jpg ;-) --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the lighting and details (on the wall) of the current candidate are more suitable for a VI. --Eusebius (talk) 12:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree; moreover an image showing both the dome and the mosque is interesting, as the nominator argues. Per Eusebius, I think that a cropped version of the nominated image, more focused on the wall but still including the Dome of the Rock and the dome of al-Aqsa mosque would be a very good candidate for the scope. Could Sheepdog85 try it? --Myrabella (talk) 18:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly believe that my image is better: File:WesternWall.JPG --Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 18:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree, the foreground is too prominent and the surroundings are not shown as well (especially if the dome is considered desirable). --Eusebius (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Dome shouldn't be desirable. The Western wall is a holy Jewish site, and the dome is Muslim. --Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 19:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong opinion about whether the dome should be here or not, but I'm pretty sure that's a rather weak argument. The fact that the wall is in the vicinity of another major landmark is linked to the scope, and if a single picture can show it while remaining reasonably focused on the wall, I don't see why we should avoid that. It somehow anchors the scope in Jerusalem. --Eusebius (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment So what do you think of this one ? Sheepdog85 (talk)
•  Support I like it as it is now, but the first version could be kept, maybe you could upload it under a new filename. --Eusebius (talk) 12:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Not an easy review as there are several good candidates, but I think this the best. I like that it does not only show the wall in isolation but also some of the surroundings, as the cultural interplay and proximity, also with Muslim landmarks is pretty crucial in understanding what a special place this really is. --Slaunger (talk) 21:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support I support this second version, more focused on the wall but still including its "context". --Myrabella (talk) 09:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]