User talk:Eusebius/Archives/Promotions/May 2010

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Apamée - Porte d'Antioche.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 and Useful --Archaeodontosaurus 08:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chartres - portail royal, tympan central.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 excellent. Annotations added.--Jebulon 10:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vercors pano.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 work. Good composition, well annotated. --Avenue 11:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Palamedes - portrait de femme en Granida.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 Definitely QI quality. Jafeluv 22:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Saint-Malo - armes de Bretagne.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Saint-Malo - armes de Bretagne.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 15:04, 4 May 2010 (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:
Yashica Mat 124 camera.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Great job description. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ikar.us (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2010 (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:
Umayyad city of Anjar.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

I think this one is the most complete of the three. I have a general view of the ruins, and I may see a part of the background (mountains with snow). So I understand what is shown. But I disagree with the scope. "ruins of Umayyad city of Anjar" could be better, because it seems to exist a modern city of Anjar. --Jebulon (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I share your opinion about the candidates (although on this one the palace can also be seen behind the columns), and what you say about the scope is true. I would tend to name the scope and the category simply "Umayyad city of Anjar"? --Eusebius (talk) 15:22, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I think so... let other reviewers tell their opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 22:31, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Anjar to Umayyad city of Anjar --Eusebius (talk) 06:11, 25 April 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".

---

•  Support this one in this new scope, for reasons above.--Jebulon (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support This more global view may give a better idea of the importance and state of the site. Per Jebulon, the most valuable image in the new scope, to me. --Myrabella (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Anjar - Cardo vu du nord 2.jpg: 0
2. Anjar - decumanus vue de l'est.jpg: +1
3. Anjar vu du palais.jpg: +2
=>
File:Anjar - Cardo vu du nord 2.jpg: Declined.
File:Anjar - decumanus vue de l'est.jpg: Declined.
File:Anjar vu du palais.jpg: Promoted.

--Eusebius (talk) 09:34, 7 May 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:
Lac Lérié.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support But I'm not sure about the relevance of the scope, maybe "massif de la Meije" could be better. Maybe "Alpes Françaises" should be more precise too in the description page, in spite of geoloc. But that's a pretty nice shot, with very informative annotations, perhaps should you try to nominate it as FP...--Jebulon (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

•  Comment The lake has an article on its own (3 years old) on the French Wikipedia, it is considered enough for a VI scope (see COM:VISC#Natural_sites). My main concern about this VI candidate is the incomplete sight of the lake. About FP, I don't think the picture has the required quality, but feel free to nominate it if you don't agree... --Eusebius (talk) 05:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Beiteddine - drapeau libanais.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}}}

--Eusebius (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mamiya RB67 de face.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. --kallerna 08:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pentax DA 18-55.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 work --AngMoKio 22:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mamiya RB67 - dos 120.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 17:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mamiya RB 67 Pro S + 90mm.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 --Archaeodontosaurus 20:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Le Lisa à Saint-Malo.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 shot. First thought it is a toy boat :) --AngMoKio 14:47, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Apamée - vue des thermes.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. --Berthold Werner 06:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Minaret damascène.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 --Cayambe 18:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Chartres - portail royal, tympan central.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chartres - portail royal, tympan central.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Cher Eusebius, je t'adresse ce bandeau qui couronne une de tes oeuvres. Je suis ravi et fier de l'avoir proposée, et très content qu'elle soit promue. Je te félicite grandement et te remercie pour nous avoir offert cet enchantement architectural.--Jebulon (talk) 23:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Bon, bah merci alors ! --Eusebius (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Apamée - Cardo.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 IMO.--Ankara 23:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Beyrouth - barbelés.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 pretty blurry background --Croucrou 23:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rolleiflex baby avec sa housse.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 GOOOD --Berthold Werner 18:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Damas - mosquée des Omeyyades - plaque.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. What does it say? Jafeluv 12:44, 15 May 2010 (UTC)  Comment Transcription provided on image page. --Eusebius 10:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC) QI, transcription provided.--Ankara 10:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mosquée des Omeyyades d'Alep.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, also good composition.--Ankara 15:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grotte aux pigeons - soleil couchant sur le piton nord.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 Not sure about that, but this one needs a promotion.--Jebulon 21:47, 22 May 2010 (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:
Great Mosque of Aleppo (exterior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Very nice photo of one of my favorite mosques. However, it is possible to capture the beautiful courtyard, fountains and the large minaret in the same image. In my opinion, it would be much more illustrative. On the other hand, no such image yet.--Ankara (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support The point of valued images is to point out the best we currently have. Obviously, if an image such Ankara suggests comes up, we should do an Most Valued Review, and (likely) replace this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
  • I strictly oppose to this statement (not to this nomination). The point of VI is not best of a bad bunch. Criterion 3 requires that the subject is illustrated well. --Ikar.us (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
    • You two are referring to two different criteria. Crit. 3 does require that the subject is illustrated well (which can be discussed here I guess), in an absolute manner, and crit. 1 says that the image must be the "most valuable" of its kind (in a relative manner), and for this one it is true that we only consider our existing collection. I think what Adam says is that we cannot say in a review that "it is descriptive enough, but a better picture could be taken so we don't promote it". But it can still be argued that the picture does not illustrate the subject well enough to be promoted. --Eusebius (talk) 20:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 23:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Saint-Malo - dériveur échoué.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. --Ianare 03:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cathédrale de Tours - 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  Support Not perfect, but does a very good job for some very difficult lighting conditions: Stained glass is inevitably far brighter than the rest of interior objects, and thus requires blending multiple photos at different exposures (or a camera with very good ability in darker areas and a fast flash), followed by blending - not really practical! Adam Cuerden 09:19, 29 May 2010 (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:
Zahlé, Lebanon.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment I think the scope would improve if at least the country was added. Lycaon (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment Agree, country added. --Eusebius (talk) 07:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support The most illustrative of the two available images on Commons, all criteria met IMO. Just out of curiosity, would you know what is the tower with a statue (?) one can see in the background? --Myrabella (talk) 21:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
  • en:Our Lady of Bekaa --Ikar.us (talk) 21:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you. en:Zahlé doesn't mention it. --Myrabella (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
      • Side question: So this unidentified town could be Zahlé? I think we can see the church tower in the left top corner. --Myrabella (talk) 09:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
        • It seems so! A view from the south apparently. --Eusebius (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
      • So now we have some more images in the category, competing for the scope. File:Bekaa Libanon 2003.jpg depicts the situation of the town in the Bekaa valley, but it is of low quality and personnally I dislike its rendering (? - "rendu" in French) when inserted in WP articles (I tried). File:ViewFromOurLadyofBekaa.jpg is interesting, showing the hills and, I guess, the Nahr el-Berdawni river, but it is smaller than the required minimum size (480x360 at the review size) => Support confirmed, but I would suggest to add a "seen from..." indication in the file description. --Myrabella (talk) 09:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

        I'll update the file description (but there's a geotag already...) --Eusebius (talk) 09:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, it will be useful (exemple). --Myrabella (talk) 16:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Maaloula pano.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 left side appears slightly overexposed to me, but QI nevertheless. --Cayambe 14:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Beiteddine - mosaïque léopard.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 21:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Saint-Malo - Surcouf plan américain.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, but a little bit strange crop.--Mbz1 21:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pano Alep 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 very good --Ianare 12:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)