User:MathKnight/FeatPics

Featured Images, Quality Images and Valued Images

Decorations and Stars

		The Purple Star
		For enriching the commons with over 500 images! Gridge 18:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC).

Features Images

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Protaetic cuprea ignicollis 2023-03-22 IZE-066.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Protaetic cuprea ignicollis 2023-03-22 IZE-066.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Quality Images

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! D9R-002.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good details, interesting object --Mbdortmund 17:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! CAT-D10N-pic001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Ianare 04:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Yaen002.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Distracting dark part at lower left. - Till.niermann 05:44, 23 October 2008 (UTC) I cropped the image. Please reconsider. MathKnight 17:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC) I think now it's OK, although the image would be better without the shadow at the lower left. But - you can't pin down the critters... - Till.niermann 18:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! RaphanusRaphanistrum001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments a deeper plane of focus might have been nicer, the detail on the petals is beautiful in this image though. -- carol 21:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chotmit003.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Question Have you done a clone work on the image? The tree branch on the left hand side seems to be hanging in the sky.Thank you--Mbz1 00:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC) * I did not retouched the image. I put it as it is. --MathKnight 10:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC) really good details on the main object, the background is not perfect, did you try a tighter crop? --Mbdortmund 10:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC) * Support A nice one.--Mbz1 12:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chartzit24-1-09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good detail, ok DOF Gnangarra 13:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! YarkonSource001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good composition and significant shot --Cesco77 19:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC) What about geocoding? --Berthold Werner 08:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC) Added. --MathKnight 13:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! IndianElephant-SRG001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good.--Mbz1 16:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! AfricanElephant-SRG001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments good.--Mbz1 16:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! NileCrocodile-SRG001c.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. - Darius Baužys 20:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Oxalis-pes-caprae-IZE-26.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments This one is better, IMO - Darius Baužys 13:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Iris001c.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I think that is qi to me. --Herbythyme 09:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Calanit009.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good. --Cayambe 18:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Calaniyot-NZ001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good. --Cayambe 18:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! CalanitMagenDavid001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI to me. --Cayambe 17:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Oxalis-paz001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Sharp and otherwise also good. --Cayambe 19:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! ShokedaFeb2010pic (24).JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --Cayambe 20:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! FranziscanerKirche001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good. --Cayambe 16:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! IDF-D9R pic001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good--Jebulon 01:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Calaniyot-OrHaner001.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very much like an impressionist painting... --Cayambe 08:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Flags of Israel and Israel Combat Engineering Corps.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Carschten 18:26, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tulip agenensis ZE.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment Beautiful picture, but why is its thumbnails invisible? invisible only for me? --David Perez 16:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC) Visible now. Good QI and beautiful. --David Perez 17:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MerkavaMk4 ZE001m.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good--Jebulon 14:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! IndependenceDay2012-Israel 0006a.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice picture and good quality. --Indeedous 16:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Schreiber-Math-TAU-001.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Mattbuck 19:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Addax-Jerusalem-Biblical-Zoo-IZE-611.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI but not a FP, the lighting is not good, the pose/angle ackward --Poco a poco 16:14, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Total QI: 26

Valued Images

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
St. Vitus Cathedral, Prague (exterior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment I would limit the scope to "(exterior)" in order to leave room for an "(interior)" scope, like for other cathedrals. I think the picture is ok, and more illustrative than this other view or than any available front view of the facade. --Eusebius (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Looks ok to me. --Eusebius (talk) 17:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Caterpillar D10.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment As you mention Israel in the description, geocoding should be complete. Lycaon (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

  I added, though it is of little importance. MathKnight 15:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

•  Support Thanks. All fine for me now. Lycaon (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Alcea setosa.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Oxalis pes-caprae.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment I think the scope "Oxalis pes-caprae, flowers with leaves" is too narrow. I would support the scope "Oxalis pes-caprae". I think it is the most valued image since it shows the flower, stamens, and leaf shape, all of which are important attributes of this species, it is good quality, and geocoded.Walter Siegmund (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

  Done. MathKnight 09:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

•  Support per above comment. Walter Siegmund (talk) 13:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Some of your 'group' picture would've been fine too IMO, as they also nicely show the typical form of the unopened flower. Lycaon (talk) 22:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Glebionis coronaria (Garland chrysanthemum).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Scope should be formatted according to guidelines for plant nominations. Lycaon (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I changed it to the main name used in WikiCommons. MathKnight 17:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I agree with the reasons of the nominator. It is geocoded. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
•  Support All fine. Lycaon (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Rastaman3000 (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Oryx leucoryx.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support All criteria met. Best by composition and resolution in scope -- George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:14, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Neutral I'm bothered by the hidden legs. Maybe a crop of File:Johannesburg zoo-White Oryx-001.jpg would be a decent candidate as well. --Eusebius (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Myrabella (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Anemone coronaria.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support While File:Anemone_coronaria_L_1.JPG shows the cauline leaves, stem and basil leaves, the last are badly out of focus, the overall technical quality is low, and it is not geocoded. Red is a common flower color. This one shows the flower well and the basil leaf shape although partially shadowed and obstructed. So, it satisfies all criteria in my opinion. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Adonis microcarpa (Small pheasant's eye).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Too bad there have an Asteraceae (Yellow Flower) below. This is the best picture for this scope and all critera met--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Kersti (talk) 09:58, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Adonis microcarpa to Adonis microcarpa (Small pheasant's eye) --Lycaon (talk) 17:48, 16 February 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".

---

•  SupportI Comfirmation my previous vote --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Kersti (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Franziskanerkirche, Salzburg (Exterior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Info Object location was given as camera location. Found a possible camera location. --Ikar.us (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)  Request Please check my location, it's a bit strange and should be correct for a VI. --Ikar.us (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
  •  Info I fixed it. It was taken from the Hohensalzburg Castle. --MathKnight 13:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
•  Support, best view of this building in the narrow old town. --Ikar.us (talk) 11:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Cyclamen persicum (Persian Cyclamen).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Despite criterion 3 (must illustrate well) concerns, i.e., somewhat overexposed (5-10% of flower pixels saturated in the red and blue channels), top could be cropped, and some fill flash on the leaves would be helpful. Other criteria met. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:06, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Einot Zukim (Ein Fashke).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Criteria satisfied. Notable scope.[1] Could be improved, perhaps, by including foreground view (close up) of vegetation, but that is not a reason to oppose. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
IDF Namer APC.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support It is. --Mile (talk) 15:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Last result before renomination:

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose =>
undecided. Lycaon (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• I still think it is best in the scope since the Namer not obscured by other objects. MathKnight 19:11, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

 Comment This may be best in scope but I cannot support it because of the location of the background green flag and because it is backlighted. In my judgment, it doesn't quite meet criteria 3.1 and 3.2, although it is useful. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)  Comment I agree, but this flag could be easily removed...--Jebulon (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 10:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Tulipa agenensis (Eyed Tulip).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope, but it was preferable to write ''[[:category:Tulipa agenensis|Tulipa agenensis]]'' --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Tavor MTAR-21.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment - Reading the article which refer to this subject, I think that a scope name '"Tavor MTAR-21" would be better.--MrPanyGoff 06:20, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

 Comment In Israel it is called simply Micro-Tavor, official designation MTAR-21 (Micro-Tavor Assult Rifle) and abroad it is marketed under the name X-95. IWI is the manufacture. MathKnight 16:43, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I mean that we should simplify the scope names as much as possible. See the wikipedia articles: en:IMI Tavor TAR-21, de:Tavor TAR-21, fr:IMI Tavor TAR-21, ru:TAR-21... In this connection I suggest the scope '"Tavor MTAR-21" adding "M" to specify the model. Well, it also can be "IMI Tavor MTAR-21"--MrPanyGoff 18:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I changed the scope. Adding IMI is not accurate since it is now manufactured by IWI (who bought the light weapons factory from the IMI). MathKnight 19:10, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

 Support - It is informative and the only one image of MTAR-21.--MrPanyGoff 20:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 22:40, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Knight SR-25 sniper rifle.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment I suggest Knight SR-25 for scope.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Shoham Park.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment it would be useful to attach the scope to the category --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:22, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Good now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
IWI Tavor TAR-21 assault rifle.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Total VI: 17.

Featured Pictures on the Hebrew Wikipedia

• 
  2009-4-12
• 
  2009-5-7
• 
  2009-5-8 (cropped version)
• 
  2009-6-1
• 
  2009-10-13
• 
  2010-3-28
• 
  2010-12-13
• 
  2011-07-12
• 
  2011-11-11
• 
  2013-03-06
• 
  2014-09-07
• 
  2014-11-10