User talk:Notyourbroom/Promotions1

Discussion Page Navigator for
Notyourbroom

• Current Talk Page
• Image Promotions
• Archives: 1

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Great wall child.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! Cornell Bailey Hall March09.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}}}

Featured picture promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Geological time spiral.png, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Geological time spiral.png has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

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:
Bailey Hall (Ithaca, New York).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support It is the best photo there is of this interesting auditorium and it meets all criteria. And a big to those who decided to replace the parking lot in front of the building with a pavement plaza. So much nicer to look at. --Slaunger (talk) 20:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Was overcategorized, now ok. --Eusebius (talk) 11:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  •  Info Thanks for catching that! A week or so ago, there was just a catch-all "Cornell University" category, which I have since split into a few dozen more specific hierarchical categories. I'm sure there are more overcategorizations like that one that I've missed, but I'll keep my eyes out. --Notyourbroom (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Slaunger (talk) 20:41, 2 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:
Andrew Dickson White House.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 SupportI don't like the curious perspektive and the strange stripes in the sky, but imho it's the best of this building. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 08:47, 17 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:
Morrill Hall (Cornell University).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Looks ok to me. I took the liberty to refactor the scope according to the guidelines. --Eusebius (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 12:52, 26 June 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:
Buddy Cianci.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Acceptable scope, but the image is really of very poor quality: disturbing background, overexposed, etc. Yann (talk) 10:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's less than ideal, but it was the best I could do trying to track him as a moving target from about 20 meters away. I took several quick shots, and this one turned out best. His bald head in the mid-day sunlight definitely came out overexposed, but the most crucial element (the face) is immediately recognizable and surpasses "the quality achievable using the built-in camera in a modern mobile phone," which seems to be the baseline for image quality for VI. Point 3.2 of the criteria is violated, I agree, but keep in mind that this was taken at a parade—unless I were to run out onto the parade route to take the photo from a different angle, there is no avoiding the incidental capture of the crowd standing on the other side of the route. So all in all, my nomination of this image was based on the observation that it is the only free photo of this subject we have, and that I think it's of reasonable quality for the circumstances under which it was taken. —Notyourbroom (talk) 13:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

•  Support I think criteria are reasonably met. --Eusebius (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 12:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Assateague Island horses August 2009 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 good quality --George Chernilevsky 06:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cathedral of Learning stitch 2.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 job IMO. --Cayambe 14:22, 11 November 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:
Cathedral of Learning.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment There is already a VI for this scope : File:Cathedral of Learning 02.jpg, so please set up a Most Valued Review if you wish to nominate this new one. --Myrabella (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 Question Oh, I see. I checked several images which appeared to be likely candidates to see whether there was already a valued image for the scope, but I did not see the one you linked to. For future reference, is there a simple way to check for existing VIs for a given scope, or must the search be done manually? —Notyourbroom (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There is this list, but I agree that a search tool would be nice. I put it on my TODO-list, but I'm very busy IRL and it is not the ultimate priority with VI-related developments, so if somebody wanted to build a little search tool, I wouldn't be offended... --Eusebius (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

 Support This picture is unmatched in its framing, aesthetic value, lack of other structures confounding the frame and identification of the building, and high resolution detail. This is also the angle that, according to architectural historian Franklin Toker, best reveals its Gothic tracery, setbacks and corner pinnacles. (see p. 85 of Pittsburgh: An Urban Portrait) The value of the image for the Cathedral of Learning category, especially at the size displayed in typical Wikipedia articles, far outweighs any (minor) technical issues that may exist. Crazypaco (talk) 05:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Thanks to Crazypaco for his/her expert review. --Myrabella (talk) 09:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Cathedral of Learning 02.jpg: -1 (current VI within same scope)
2. Cathedral of Learning stitch 1.jpg: +2 <--
3. Cathedral of Learning stitch 2.jpg: 0 
=>
File:Cathedral of Learning 02.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former.
File:Cathedral of Learning stitch 1.jpg: Promoted. <--
File:Cathedral of Learning stitch 2.jpg: Declined.

--—Notyourbroom (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Cathedral of Learning stitch 1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cathedral of Learning stitch 1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)