User talk:Eusebius/Archives/Promotions/October 2008

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:
Mikumi National Park.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Nominated so that it can be compared to the original picture in MVR. --Eusebius (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • After much examination of the two picture, I believe the other one to be atrue representation of the colours. Muhammad 22:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Question In what manner do you, Mohammad, think this image illustrates the scope well? I see a dusty road, some trees and a landscape. Are there any characteristics in the images which are specific to the Mikumi National Park (as compared to other national parks)? I am not asking to be rude, I would just like to be enlightened such that I can provide a more qualified review. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Other National Parks have more green vegetation compared to this one. Also, at the midground, there are mountainous ranges, probably the Uluguru Mountains which surround the park together with the Udzungwa mountains which are a characteristic feature of the Mikumi National Park due to its geography. Muhammad 22:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support This one is much better than the other one. Mr. Mario (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose The creator of the image states above that the original is a more true representation of the colour at the scene. I think we should go for the most faithful representation, even if the colors are a more washed out. It seem like that is how it really looks. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment Since we have all agreed that one version of this image has value, what is left is to agree upon the one with most encyclopedic value. IMO as the author of the image, I support the original version as being the most accurate depiction. Muhammad 17:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support - I prefer this one, as the washed-out colours of the original are probably the result of a slight overexposure. Anyway, the colours of this one were not directly manipulated, only the overall contrast was slightly adjusted. As for "the true representation of the colour at the scene", that is much less objective that it seems. Depends, among several other things, on the time of the day, the transparency of the atmosphere, the place of the sun relative to the camera and ... the eyes of the observer. Alvesgaspar (talk) 18:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

MVR scores:
Commons:Valued image candidates/Mikumi panorama.jpg: 0
Commons:Valued image candidates/Mikumi panorama edit.jpg: +1 <--
Result:
Image:Mikumi panorama.jpg: Declined
Image:Mikumi panorama edit.jpg: Promoted <--

-- Slaunger (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ablis - mort de Joseph.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 the black should IMHO be reduced. --Mbdortmund 22:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC) QuestionBetter now? --Eusebius 05:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC) seelms better to me now --Mbdortmund 11:36, 7 October 2008 (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:
Patras.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Slightly better than the closest competitor, which is Image:Patras from Ferry 2003.jpg IMO. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support - for me is OK --Pudelek (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 15:42, 10 October 2008 (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:
Tower of the Winds.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Seems to be the best one. --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cathédrale de Nantes - clé de voûte travée sud.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, good composition, nice colours. Vassil 09:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cathédrale de Nantes - la Force Guerrière.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 --Massimo Catarinella 21:12, 20 October 2008 (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:
Kensington Palace.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

• Is this the rear side? The camera you used was not really good. --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a side view. Mine is from the east, this one from the south (I'll geotag this one in a few minutes). No, the camera I used was not really good, but remember, "the quality achievable using the built-in camera in a modern mobile phone should normally be good enough" --Eusebius (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

 Support Best view from the main side. --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Château des ducs de Bretagne - armoiries Louis XIV.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  Info It is impossible to have the whole shadow in the frame (bottom centre), there is a window right below the crop line. --Eusebius 13:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC) good details --Mbdortmund 16:00, 21 October 2008 (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:
Champ-de-Mars.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Info Featured picture on the english WP. --Eusebius (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support - The best available -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Agree with above assessment. Lycaon (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support A lot better. Mr. Mario (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Paryż pola marsowe.JPG: 0
2. Champ de Mars from the Eiffel Tower - July 2006 edit.jpg: +3 <--
=>
Image:Paryż pola marsowe.JPG: Declined
Image:Champ de Mars from the Eiffel Tower - July 2006 edit.jpg: Promoted. <--

--Eusebius (talk) 09:14, 24 October 2008 (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:
Saint Anatolius of Milan.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment The only representation I found of this saint, supposed to be the first or second bishop of Milan and celebrated on sept. 24th. Eusebius (talk) 21:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment The picture has been cropped, but I don't really like it this way. I guess it doesn't affect its VI potential, but just tell me if you think one version is better than the other. --Eusebius (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment - I also prefer the uncropped version -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I think it would be just unfair to revert the crop, and the editor has not uploaded a derivative version on a separate page... Would the crop influence your vote? --Eusebius (talk) 17:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, it does, we should strive for the best picture. Maybe a MVR could be started with the original, under a new name. Alvesgaspar (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done Both versions moved to MVR. This one has been reverted, since it is the original. --Eusebius (talk) 08:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

•  Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Question Are there any in- or off wikimedia links you can refer to for further reading? I was not able to find anything with a Google search except for your images, nor could I find a Saint with name on en, only one in Constantinoble, which is not quite the same... -- Slaunger (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

  I could only find the French and the Italian article on the corresponding wikipediae (see the "used in" section). The Italian one references a book. --Eusebius (talk) 20:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

•  Support OK, that's fine. Seems to illustrate the scope well. I can't really make up my mind which version best illustrates the scope in review size, so I'll support both versions. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment Any more votes? Currently, both pics in the MVR could be closed as "undecided" although both are supported... --Eusebius (talk) 08:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

MVR scores:
Commons:Valued image candidates/Ablis - Saint Anatole.jpg: +2 <--
Commons:Valued image candidates/Ablis - Saint Anatole cropped.jpg: +1
Result:
Image:Ablis - Saint Anatole.jpg: Promoted <--
Image:Ablis - Saint Anatole cropped.jpg: Declined

-- Slaunger (talk) 08:25, 16 October 2008 (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:
Temple of Hephaestus in Athens.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Info I've selected four pictures in the category and put them in MVR. I think it would be nice to have a VI for that beautiful classical doric temple. --Eusebius (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Best compromise between angle of view, lightning, and no distracting elements. Difficult decision. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Would be my choice as well (if only I could disregard the fact that I didn't take it :-) --Eusebius (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Hephaistos Temple.JPG: 0
2. Hephaisteion 2.jpg: 0
3. Hephaistos temple 2006.jpg: +1  <--
4. Temple of Hephaestus in Athens 02.JPG: -1
=>
Image:Hephaistos Temple.JPG: Declined.
Image:Hephaisteion 2.jpg: Declined.
Image:Hephaistos temple 2006.jpg: Promoted. <--
Image:Temple of Hephaestus in Athens 02.JPG: Declined.

--Eusebius (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

File:Patras cathedral - central dome.jpg

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

review

•  Info There are many good images for this scope, so it can be a difficult one. This is one of the rare geotagged ones, but it is not a valid reason to choose it. I think it isolates the subject well and shows the attributes of the Pantocrator: the book, the right hand (three joined fingers and two separate ones), the bearded/long-haired/majestic image of the Christ, the christogram IC/XC. Besides, it is a beautifully restored one (in the cathedral of Patras, in Greece). --Eusebius (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Neutral This was a difficult one... First I had to read the article to understand what this was about. As always it was a pleasure learning about topics I had no previous knowledge about;-) By browsing the very many available images depicting the scope, it seams clear to me that the nominated images is probably the one of the best technical quality (I like the editing done to isolate the subject) and I also tend to be believe that it is a very good illustration of the scope. Do you know when the creation was made? (Would be nice to have on the image page). I am a litlle bit reluctant to fully support it though as I am in doubt whether it is the most valued we have? What I have in mind is Image:ChristPantocratorStCatherines.jpg which is not geocoded and has a lousy resolution as well. However, it is at the same time the oldest known representation of the subject and the quality of the artwork and expressiveness in review size in that one is quite remarkable as well, and I think that the age and artistic qualities in combination makes it on par with the nominated image concerning value. I also do not feel entirely competent to pick out the most valuable one as it appears to require a lot of specific domain knowledge concerning the subject to fully appreciate the finer details. So by voting neutral I at least do not do any harm;-) -- Slaunger (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

About the date of the work of art, I found nothing on WP but was very disappointed to read here (a few minutes ago) that the basilica was built in the 1970s. I found here that the construction began in 1908 and that it was inaugurated in 1974. I think I exagerated the "beautifully restored" thing . Eusebius (talk) 07:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

•  Info An additional remark: to the best of my knowledge, the denomination "Christ pantocrator" is not linked to a particular period (only to iconography elements), so I don't think the recent date of this one does diqualifies it (otherwise I would have withdrawn). Rather, I might nominate one or two other ones that have more historical and less descriptive value and set up a MVR. --Eusebius (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support One of the best Pantocrator Albertus teolog (talk) 07:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 08:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

File:Rio Antirio Bridge.jpg

★ 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:
Rio-Antirio bridge.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Info Selected images from the category for a MVR about this bridge, which is a link between Peloponnese and the northern part of Greece. The official name of the bridge is "Chiralaos Trikoupis bridge", but it is never used (should the scope be changed?). --Eusebius (talk) 07:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support - I prefer this one, though the quality of the image is not the best, because the whole bridge is shown in a (more or less) side view. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Rio-Antirio bridge.jpg: 0
2. Rio bridge - wave 1.jpg: 0
3. Rio AntiRio Bridge Elevation-fr.svg: 0 
4. Rio Antirio Bridge.jpg: +1 <--
=>
Image:Rio-Antirio bridge.jpg: Declined.
Image:Rio bridge - wave 1.jpg: Declined.
Image:Rio AntiRio Bridge Elevation-fr.svg: Declined.
Image:Rio Antirio Bridge.jpg: Promoted. <--

--Eusebius (talk) 11:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cathédrale Saint-Pierre de Nantes - 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 Good image --Twdragon 17:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC) It is certainly a good picture of the facade but it is too small for large reprints and the asymmetry between the white part and the grey part is disturbing. --MathKnight 20:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC) About size: it is over QI requirements, no pb. About asymmetry: it is intrinsic to the building (due to different restoration dates) and any correction of it would be deceiving (and thus incompatible with QI guidelines) --Eusebius 09:40, 23 October 2008 (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:
Cathédrale Saint-Pierre et Saint-Paul de Nantes (exterior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

• I'm not so lucky with this picture, because the left side is overexposed (Is this side cleaned?). Do do have the chance to try it on a less sunny day? --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • One tower was purged. Albertus teolog (talk) 11:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    • It has been cleaned very recently, and a few years after the right side (this is the reason for the colour difference). I'll not be able to take another shot. I think that overexposure is limited (which is a personal opinion) and that it remains whithin the quality expectations of a VI. --Eusebius (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I know that the tower was cleared. I said to Berhold. I do not have anything against. :-) Albertus teolog (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment I suggest to narrow the scope on Facade, because this picture shows more majesty of the cathedral. Albertus teolog (talk) 11:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Is it ok if we say "exterior" instead of facade? I'd like to limit multiplicity of scopes for a single building. For the interior, I might be able to upload and nominate a better picture later (not sure yet, but I hope). --Eusebius (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
    • "Exterior" - reads better. You are right. For the buildings should be "outside" (exterior) and "inside" (interior). I think so. "Facade" is too narrow range scope. Albertus teolog (talk) 15:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Cathédrale Saint-Pierre et Saint-Paul de Nantes to Cathédrale Saint-Pierre et Saint-Paul de Nantes (exterior) --Eusebius (talk) 15:58, 23 October 2008 (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 Nice and valued image. Albertus teolog (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 12:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Soleil couchant sur le Vercors.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, great atmosphere. I like it. MathKnight 17:39, 28 October 2008 (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:
Pierre Cambronne.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Info possible competitors: one portrait and the whole statue (less interesting at review size). --Eusebius (talk) 16:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Foroa (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose Who is the sculptor and when was it created? Commons:Valued_image_criteria says that valued image candidates must be fully described on the image page. --Kjetil_r 00:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Date added (1848), I have to check about the sculptor. --Eusebius (talk) 06:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done Sculptor is Jean Debay. --Eusebius (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support, this is the best photo we have of Cambronne. --Kjetil_r 17:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for finding the exact sculptor and the right category! --Eusebius (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 06:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cathédrale de Nantes - nef.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 Outstanding straight perspective, perfect lighting. Congratulations!--Tango7174 13:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dijon - Notre-Dame - rosace sud.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 of a Neo-Gothic rose window. MathKnight 22:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)