User talk:Eusebius/Archives/Promotions/April 2009

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stand pour trompette.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 Yes, "stand" is the correct terminology. Pbroks13 18:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Effaceur fermé.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 No Wow, but QI -- Pro2 22:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Perspective correction needed, horizon is tilted --Richard Bartz 22:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC) and washed out sky and background... --Mbdortmund 23:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC) ... HDR would have worked best --Richard Bartz 11:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC) It is a conspiracy. With a comment every 24h, this wonderful image will mechanically never be promoted. Do you think I don't see what you're doing? Plain anti-stationery censorship. --Eusebius 12:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC) This is no conspiracy. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. --LC-de 11:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Boule de Noël.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.--Mbz1 17:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ 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:
Ink eraser.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support No competitor far and wide & quality is good. A modest remark - it would be great to see it working when erasing ink. --Richard Bartz (talk) 16:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trompette - premier piston - perspective.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 Looks clear and sharp. QI. But may be better to crop it more tightly? It will be less nice, but more situable for illustrative purposes. #!George Shuklin 01:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ 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:
IDsec.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Oppose It looks good, but since it's not really comprehensible without the text, I'm not quite sure if it's valuable enough. It seems to try too hard for easy internationalisation, at the cost of clarity: it would probably be better if text was added to the image, and it was nominated as a Valued image set with multiple language versions. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I won't do that, sorry, I'm really convinced it is more valuable as it is now. Besides, image description is part of the value and part of the criteria: we don't print animal names on the pictures themselves... --Eusebius (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

•  Info Please also note that this choice is consistent with most of the previously promoted labelled diagrams: --Eusebius (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Internationalisation is important. I think it is good for the scope. Yann (talk) 21:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support I think it is good too. →Diti the penguin — 13:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 16:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Château de Fontainebleau - pano façade.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. --Karora 02:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pointe effaceur.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 A shame there is not a little more at the left to exhibit the graphic design better. --Karora 01:08, 28 April 2009 (UTC)  Info I've cropped just after the (copyrighted) logo of the brand... --Eusebius 05:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)  Support Fair enough! --Karora 10:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grenoble - ancien évêché - Joseph Fourier.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 Ok IMHO --Berthold Werner 17:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)