User talk:Eusebius/Archives/Promotions/December 2009

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:
Cathédrale Saint-Gatien de Tours (interior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best image within the scope; all crieria met. Side comment: Category:Cathédrale Saint-Gatien de Tours has been updated at the same time. --Myrabella (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Loch Laich.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 nice atmosphere.--Mbz1 02:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dijon - Hôtel Aubriot - figure de soutènement 3.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 the harsh contrast and the light from above seem to be problems - other opinions? --Mbdortmund 16:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC) IMO the light from above makes the image more dramatic, and I like it.--Mbz1 03:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Saint-Malo - Global Helena.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 --George Chernilevsky 14:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Drummond castle edit.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 --Mbdortmund 23:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Parthenon - facade ouest.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. --Berthold Werner 15:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cathédrale de Tours - verrière de Saint Martin 1.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 {{{3}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nantes - cathédrale vue du château.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 TRUE. But small file size means heavy jpg-compression... as the effect is barely visible here, I promote the image. Cayambe 20:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC) To anwser your question, I have no other version (left). I don't really know about the small size, maybe I denoised it and the denoiser took an initiative (it is a rather old picture). --Eusebius 22:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC).  Comment Ok, thanks for the feedback. --Cayambe 11:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Saint-Malo - Fort National.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. --Berthold Werner 10:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Musée des Beaux-Arts de Dijon - Louis XIV 1.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. --Berthold Werner 16:27, 12 December 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:
Drummond Castle.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support This image is the only one on Commons showing the two parts of the castle (according to en:Drummond Castle, "the oldest part is a tower-house" (ruined then rebuilt); "a large mansion was added on the other side of the courtyard in the 1690s"). Its resolution is good enough for the review size asked for a VIC. --Myrabella (talk) 05:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

MVR Scores: 
1. Drummond Castle & Gardens.jpg: +1 <--
2. Drummond castle.jpg: 0
=>
File:Drummond Castle & Gardens.jpg: Promoted. <--
File:Drummond castle.jpg: Declined. 

--Myrabella (talk) 00:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cathédrale de Dijon - dalle tombale.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 Well done. --AFBorchert 17:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Paris - Jardin des plantes - AL Jussieu.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 08:39, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cawdor castle - jardin d'agrément.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 image --Herbythyme 14:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Eilean Donan castle - 95mm.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eilean Donan castle - 95mm.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 16:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Saint-Malo - fort du Petit Bé.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 for me -- Archaeodontosaurus 10:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dunstaffnage chapel (interior).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 Fine to me --Herbythyme 11:01, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dunstaffnage castle - gate.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 composition! --kallerna 10:56, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dunstaffnage castle crop.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 for me. --Berthold Werner 18:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Saint-Malo - armes de Bretagne.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 --George Chernilevsky 19:55, 20 December 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:
Dunstaffnage Chapel.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment With "detailed stonework of outstanding quality" dating from the 13 century, it seems notable to me, but not so much so that a subscope is warranted. I found a paragraph on this ruin in enwiki and a short article on nlwiki. Walter Siegmund (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• Having an article on its own on a Wikipedia" is a sufficient condition for certain types of scopes, such as natural places, and I took that as a reference for nominating (with the nl article in mind). It is true that this condition is not mentionned for buildings. --Eusebius (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

• I think we are in agreement about the "Dunstaffnage Chapel" scope. My question is whether "Dunstaffnage Chapel (interior)" is merited. I think you questioned this in your comment (above), also. Are you willing to change the scope to "Dunstaffnage Chapel" (without the parenthetical "interior"? Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure, if you agree with me, after having seen the picture, that the exterior view is not so significant. Mostly, it fails to show the ruinous aspect of the chapel. I change the scope. --Eusebius (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Dunstaffnage Chapel (interior) to Dunstaffnage Chapel Eusebius (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2009 (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".

---

•  Support Meets all six criteria, in my judgment. The revised scope is good. Walter Siegmund (talk) 13:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 14:34, 23 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:
Fort du Petit Bé (Saint-Malo).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support OK to me, all criteria met. --Myrabella (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Saint-Malo - le Fort National à marée basse.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 {{{3}}}

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:
Fort National (Saint-Malo).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support I tend to prefer this image, because it clearly depicts the structure of the fort, and it is more informative about its topographic situation. --Myrabella (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Info I've added a candidate. --Eusebius (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Scores:
1. Fort-National-DSC 6293.jpg: +1 
2. Saint-Malo - Fort National.jpg: +0
3. Saint-Malo - le Fort National à marée basse.JPG: +0
=>
File:Fort-National-DSC 6293.jpg: Promoted.
File:Saint-Malo - Fort National.jpg: Declined.
File:Saint-Malo - le Fort National à marée basse.JPG: Declined.

--George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)