I know in the scope I put an East direction (I am willing to change the scope if necessary) which is the most accurate even though the picture is at an angle. Even though it was Labor day and as deserted as it gets there was still security so angled shots had to happen for some of the DSCC. Is there any other issue with this nomination? Thank you, Sixflashphoto (talk) 22:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC) -- Sixflashphoto (talk)[reply]
Comment The vehicles are very present they are not specific to the scope. The buildings that are specific to the scope, occupy only a very small part of the picture. It is difficult to promote it. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The DSCC is a very large complex with many roads (not all accessible). They store many different kinds of military equipment for many reasons. I can never see a way to get pictures in the hangers which leaves me trying to take pictures of what's outside. The buildings are actually one of the three HQ's of the Defence Logistics Agency (the bureaucrats that manage in part the supply part of military logistics). The vehicles represent what is stored outside in great numbers down the eastern road. Sixflashphoto (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
Comment - I understand the difficulties in photographing this facility, but I agree with Archaeodontosaurus: This photo doesn't seem very useful to me. It shows a bunch of vehicles and some nondescript structures, but nothing is identified and most people probably won't really know what they're looking at. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination I can understand your valid points. I do think this is a very important depot for Logistics that keeps the US Armed Forces operating but I understand the proper objections to this photo. I will try to find a day before winter where security will be slightly more lax then usual and try to get a better picture of what is around there. In any case that set of vehicles was just a small part. Thank you for your sincere and honest opinions everyone! Sixflashphoto (talk) 12:37, 30 September 2017 (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.
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.
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.
