Wikipedia:Picture peer review/Egyptian pharoah and queen
Colossal Egyptian statue[edit]
Large, the statue is in good quality, an aspect of human history and has EV to at least four articles.
- Articles this image appears in
- Ancient Egypt, Abu Simbel temples, History of ancient Egypt, Africa
- Creator
- Photo by Merlin-UK
- Suggested by
- I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Comments
- As far as EV is concerned, the image only has tangential EV in Ancient Egypt, History of ancient Egypt, and Africa, and since it's only in the gallery at Abu Simbel temples, its EV there is limited as well. From a strictly EV standpoint, this would very likely not succeed at either FPC or VPC. Makeemlighter (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Only in a gallery? That gallery shows many other aspects of the same monument, which is what the article itself is about. How can ancient Egypt be one of the earliest major human civilizations and relics of it considered not of encyclopedic value? And you must give this image credit for its quality. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, only in a gallery. FPs must contribute significantly to an article; gallery usage has never been considered significant. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- The image could be moved, I'd suggest switching it out for this image currently in this section, and once again, I think you're missing the significance of the image itself. Just because it's in a gallery in on one page out of four doesn't lower its quality or historic importance. Ancient Egyptian history is regarded as important to the whole of the development of humanity and the house of Ramses has taught us plenty. Lastly saying it's "just a gallery image" definitely does not reduce the importance of an image or its subject, otherwise suddenly a lot of historic artwork means nothing by your definition. I don't have a problem with the inclusion of galleries, getting a quick overview of their examples, but all they really mean is that someone was too lazy to give the image a deep explanation, that Wikipedia probably wouldn't allow it seeing it as unimportant or that like in my example two links ago no explanation to the images' relevance is necessary, maybe a deep description of that image is redundant or superfluous to the article at hand or that you could simply read up on all you need to know about that image somewhere else on Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but if this image is not feature-worthy, though I can't claim to be any type of egyptologist, I'm not buying that it's because of a lack of EV, especially with such damn good photo quality! --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, only in a gallery. FPs must contribute significantly to an article; gallery usage has never been considered significant. Makeemlighter (talk) 07:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Only in a gallery? That gallery shows many other aspects of the same monument, which is what the article itself is about. How can ancient Egypt be one of the earliest major human civilizations and relics of it considered not of encyclopedic value? And you must give this image credit for its quality. --I′d※<3※Ɵɲɛ (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
- Seconder