User talk:Pierre André Leclercq/Archive 2

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Colombo Temple bouddhiste de Gangaramaya (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 Now at this ISO, you at least avoided the noise (although the background could be sharper) --Daniel Case 04:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bandarawela Murugan Kovil (4).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 QI for me --Halavar 15:24, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dalle tombale dans l'église protestante Wolfendhal.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}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mini Adam’s peak (18).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 Great perspective and color ... I almost had to hold on when I looked down at the road --Daniel Case 04:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mini Adam’s peak.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; well done --Daniel Case 04:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Colombo le marché aux légumes (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. --Hubertl 17:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Colombo le marché aux légumes (12).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. --Johann Jaritz 11:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Colombo le marché aux légumes (9).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. --Johann Jaritz 11:18, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Parc national de Uda Walawa Sri-Lanka (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. --Michael Barera 04:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Parc national de Uda Walawa Sri-Lanka (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 Good quality. --Michael Barera 04:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Parc national de Uda Walawa Sri-Lanka (4).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. Nice detail at such distance! --Michael Barera 04:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Misunderstanding at "Relief, Königswinter, Germany"

Dear Pierre,

recently you declined at Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list#January 3, 2016 the nomination "Relief, Königswinter, Germany" (nomination of this image, nominated by Leit) with a comment "decline – unless 2 megapixels". I couldn't understand, why you did so. The image has a size of 2.383 × 1.956 pixel = 4.661.148 – obviously more than 4 megapixels. I allowed myself to revert your declination, because your argument wasn't appropriate. This revert I commented with "Decline because 'unless 2 megapixels'? The image has more than 4 megapixels. Therefore I reverted this to Nomination."
I was thinking about your comment and couldn't reproduce your assessment. Now I got an idea: At the file page, chapter "Historique du fichier" at column "Dimensions" we can read "2 383 × 1 956 (1,35 Mio)". I assume, you took a look at the value "1,35 Mio". The presentation of this value happens, if I choose French as language. If I switch the language to English, the expression is "2,383 × 1,956 (1.35 MB)"; if I choose German, it is "2.383 × 1.956 (1,35 MB)". The values in the brackets are NOT the pixel size, they are the file size. In English and in German the file size is mentioned as "MB", in French it is shown as "Mio". I assume, this caused your misunderstanding. It's a matter in which unit of measurement file sizes are presented. My assumption is, the French version of the Wikimedia software has either a bug or should be improved, to avoid such misunderstandings. I'm not very familiar with French, therefore I can't understand, why the unit of measurement of a file size is shown in French as "Mio", not as "MB", like in English and German. Any comment is welcome! Regards, Hasenläufer (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
To avoid another potential misunderstanding: I don't matter whether the mentioned image is promoted as quality image or not – this is not my theme. My theme is: Did you misunderstood the file size value as pixel size, as I assumed? If yes: How can these kinds of misunderstandings be avoided in future? What about my assumption, the French version of the Wikimedia software might be buggy regarding the mentioned aspect? --Hasenläufer (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Hasenläufer, I'm very sorry, actually, in a rush, I had misunderstood the file size value as pixel size. I had not noticed that the image has a size of 2383 × 1956 pixels = 4,661,148 which obviously over 4 megapixels, and which gives it a promotion of quality image. I would strive, therefore, to be more vigilant in the future, to avoid these kinds of misunderstandings.  Thank you. you for making me notice this error which I apologize. Best regards--Pierre André (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Dear Pierre, there is no need to apologize. It's more important for me, to know about the reason of your misunderstanding. Obviously it's not your "fault" – instead, the reason seems to be a lack of the presentation of file sizes in the French version of Wikimedia/Commons/whatever, which can leed to such misunderstandings. --Hasenläufer (talk) 13:59, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Colombo le marché aux légumes (15).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. --Johann Jaritz 08:33, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Les pecheurs de la plage de Trincomalee (4).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. --Hubertl 09:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Les pecheurs de la plage de Trincomalee (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 quality. --Hubertl 09:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Isurumuniya Rock Temple (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 The white roof is overexposed. --Hasenläufer 19:14, 3 January 2016 (UTC)  Done Thank you for your advice, correction overexposure<;--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 09:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Isurumuniya Rock Temple (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 Good for me.--Шухрат Саъдиев 12:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Why I declined an image that already was promoted

...Because I didn't know it. It was on QIC, but was hidden all the days. It was already promoted by User:Cccefalon, which was a wrong decision imo, as the picture is very, very unsharp... but as it is already promoted, the original nomination is invalid now and so I'm going to remove it completely. --A.Savin 17:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Done [1] --A.Savin 17:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC) .... Thank you. Best regard.- --Pierre André (talk) 09:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC) |}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Royal Botanical Gardens serre des orchidées de Peradeniya - Vanda Rocky Blue.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. --Hubertl 09:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Royal Botanical Gardens serre des orchidées de Peradeniya . - Arundina graminifolia.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. --Hubertl 09:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Weligama beach (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. --Hubertl 18:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Samudragama vu de Koneshwarama.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 I would had cropped the trees at the bottom, but still ok --Poco a poco 11:50, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Les pecheurs de la plage de Trincomalee (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 Good quality. --Hubertl 08:54, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Galle Closenberg Hotel (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 quality. --Ermell 22:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Galle, la Mosquée Meera .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. --Hubertl 21:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Galle.- Le fort Old dutch (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 quality. --Hubertl 21:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Galle.- Le fort Old dutch (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. --Johann Jaritz 04:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Colombo Temple bouddhiste de Gangaramaya (8).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 Weak,need more DoF but good details --Livioandronico2013 16:05, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Panorama du Mini Pic Adam.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. --Hubertl 19:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Colombo Temple bouddhiste de Gangaramaya (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. --Johann Jaritz 13:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Les pecheurs de la plage de Trincomalee (5).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 --Hubertl 12:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Les pecheurs de la plage de Trincomalee (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 Ok for me --Hubertl 12:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Laos Plateau des Bolovens.-Pathounphone (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 quality. --Hubertl 13:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Laos Plateau des Bolovens.-Pathounphone (5).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. --Hubertl 13:26, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Laos Plateau des Bolovens.-le Chalet Pathounphone (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 Seems slightly oversaturated, but for me good quality.--Famberhorst 16:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wolfendhal Street..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}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Laos, plantations sur le Plateau des Bolovens, (8).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. --Hubertl 04:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Champassak.- Vat Phou statue 2 du temple de la montagne.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. --Johann Jaritz 09:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Champassak.- Vat Phou statue du temple de la montagne.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. --Johann Jaritz 09:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tracteur McCormick Deering à Pairi Daiza (Be).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. --Johann Jaritz 09:55, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Plaque inaugurative du 30 mars 2014.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. --Johann Jaritz 09:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rawana Cut, Koneshwarama Temple.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 perfect, but close enough QICbot (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Riga Elizabetes iela 2,.JPG

Bonjour, Pierre André, Je ma suis permis de télécharger une version modifié, je sais que tu avais corrigé mais je trouvais la partie gauche toujours trop claire, j'ai aussi coupé le dessus ou il avait une bande blanche. Si ma version ne te plais pas revert sur ta version, cordialement, Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Bonsoir Christian Ferrer merci pour ton initiative excellente. Cordialement à toi. -- Pierre André (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Turaida Castle (6).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. --Poco a poco 12:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Khong Island Phou Asa Mountain Laos (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 quality. --Johann Jaritz 13:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Khong Island Phou Asa Mountain Laos (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 Good quality. --Johann Jaritz 13:36, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Offrande sur le site de Vat Phou.-Champassak, Laos.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. --Hubertl 13:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vientiane.-Temple Pha That Luang Laos (4).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. --Hubertl 13:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Khon Phapheng Falls, Province de Champassak, Laos.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}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! The new Sigulda castle (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 quality. --Jacek Halicki 11:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pierre tombale de Joan Pieter Clop van Soligen.- Colombo.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 Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:22, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pierre tombale Rev Henricus Philipsz et Susanna Scharff Colombo.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. --Poco a poco 21:10, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pierre tombale Rev Henricus Philipsz Colombo.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. --Ermell 10:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pierre tombale Susanna Scharff Colombo -.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. --Ermell 10:57, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! The new Sigulda castle (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. --Poco a poco 21:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2016 (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:
Pre-Columbian gold objects mochica headdress Larco musé Rafael Larco.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Freedom Monument (Brivibas Piemineklis).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. --Jacek Halicki 14:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Riga.- Livu square Rockabilly house.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. --Jacek Halicki 13:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Riga Elizabetes iela 10B,.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 --A.Savin 14:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Riga Meistaru iela (poterne).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 --A.Savin 00:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kaunas .- Vytautas the Great Bridge (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  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Église Sainte-Gertrude de Kaunas-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 Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:36, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Le Chateau Trakai (Lituanie) (4).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. --Domdomegg 13:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Le Chateau Trakai (Lituanie) (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. --Domdomegg 14:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kaunas .- Vytautas the Great Bridge (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 composition, sharp enough for Q1 if you take a photo from this distance --Michielverbeek 06:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! St Petersbourg.- Petrogradskaïa, le croiseur "Aurora".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, a lot of blue but that's correct, good perspective, sharp enough a Q1photo --Michielverbeek 08:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Le Chateau Trakai (Lituanie) (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 Good quality. --Ermell 09:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2016 (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:
'.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vestige du Château de Vilnius.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 now. --F. Riedelio 17:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC))

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Turaida Castle (4).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 OK. --C messier 22:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 4 February 2016 (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:
Uros people The Aymaras of Isla Summa Willjta on Lake Titicaca.- Peru.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Caution electronic signatures is damaged. You'd have signs in "nominator". --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you to report this omission.- The error is repaired.. -- Pierre André (talk) 11:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2016 (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:
faceting machine head in the"Isini Jewellerie" - Kandy, Sri Lanka..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Le scope doit être en anglais. En Français ce n'est pas une fraiseuse mais une tête de facetteuse. Le terme Asie du sud n'a pas d’intérêt dans le scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

•  Done.-Thank you for your review (fr: Merci à vous, les corrections sont faites).-- Pierre André (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
• It is possible that the more correct term is "Facetting Machine Head", An English speaking could he confirm? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:27, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • This looks like a polishing head to me. Charles (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Thank you for your explanations. More details are also provided on the modern "faceting machine" here: Faceting machine.-- Pierre André (talk) 15:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
      •  Support Although I have modified your scope. Viewing the syntax. This is a good image. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:14, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Longueville Plage des Conches (9).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. --Hubertl 21:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

VI

Regarde comment j'ai modifié le scope de ton premier télégraphe pour alléger le suivant... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:49, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

•  Thank you. Archaeodontosaurus, je vais prendre bonne note de ce modèle. La syntaxe n'est pas toujours évidente pour le senior que je suis. -- Pierre André (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! St Vincent -sur-Jard la Maison de Clémenceau (8).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 Good quality. --XRay 18:08, 10 February 2016 (UTC) COM:OVERCAT, however, is to be respected. Always. --A.Savin 17:44, 11 February 2016 (UTC)*  Done Fixed the problem of sub-categorization, which I had not yet studied.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 22:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Good quality--A.Savin 02:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lille 1, 3 avenue du Peuple-Belge.- Maison de Gille de la Boe.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 Enough for me. --A.Savin 17:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! La Tranche-sur-Mer, France (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 Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 17 February 2016 (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:
Old condenser in distillery "Claeyssens" - Wambrechies (Nord)..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Viewing changes the category of the scope in "Condensers". -- Pierre André (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment I have added a few Wikilinks. The image itself has too much clutter. I suggest that you crop 35% of the image from the left-hand side left and on the right-hand side crop the the image so that the yellow building is removed. Once this is done, I will be able to support your nomination. Martinvl (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Thank you for your advice. A crop 35% of the image from the left-hand side left and on the right-hand side was done.-- Pierre André (talk) 09:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support The cropped image is much better. In addition this image meets all six criteria for a VI. Martinvl (talk) 10:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:07, 17 February 2016 (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:
A Morse Telegraph 1845, in the "Musée régional des télécommunications en Flandres" - Marcq-en-Barœul..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 17:21, 17 February 2016 (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:
A telegraph post Baudot 1870 in the Musée régional des télécommunications en Flandres - Marcq-en-Barœul..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Very valuable image for WP --Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 18:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:05, 18 February 2016 (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:
Strowger switch in the Musée régional des télécommunications en Flandres- Marcq-en-Barœul..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Problème en VI

il semble que nous ayons un petit problème avec ton horloge les engrenages sont elliptiques comme le cadran, se qui parait impossible. Si tu as des problème pour corriger dis moi le j'aurai plaisir à le faire, et à te l'envoyer. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment merci Archaeodontosaurus de m'avoir signalé ce problème. J'ai donc téléchargé la photo d'origine prise en contre-plongée, qui demande la correction des perspectives. Ton aide sera bienvenue. Cordialement.-- Pierre André (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Done Je me suis pris au jeu, l'objet est intéressant. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:01, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Thank you. Merci pour cette superbe présentation qui sublime la photo.-- Pierre André (talk) 11:20, 20 February 2016 (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:
Winch type Harken, 2 speed (ratio 42.).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment This type of object can be labeled. But the place has no interest should not appear in the scope. Finally he exite of very many specimen, it must give the model name in the scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Thank you for this informations, changes were made.-- Pierre André (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:36, 21 February 2016 (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:
Turret clocks in France.- Clockwork (1912) by "Lussault" factories..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment It seems that there was a distortion problem. The gears and the dial are oval. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment The distortion of the clock mechanism is due to the correction of the pespective of the cabinet. Maybe the original picture is more credible.-- Pierre André (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Good now, interesting object. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Best in scope and useful --Caballero//Historiador ^☊ 23:59, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:56, 23 February 2016 (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:
Uncle Sam Uncle Sam carnival game....Hot Stuff meter.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:18, 26 February 2016 (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:
Butter churns in "Villeneuve d'Ascq,Open Air Museum".
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Vitraux en VI

Par principe il faut un scope par image. La nous avons un scope et deux images. Il serait bon de les différencier. Les vitraux comme les tableaux ont souvent un titre ou du moins un sujet. Peut être le nom de l'auteur s'il est différant. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• . Merci Archaeodontosaurus pour cette information, j'ai donc changé le nom de l'un des fichiers en "Stained glass window of Saint Elisabeth of Hungary in cathedral of Sao Pedro de Alcantara" ainsi que le scope "Stained glass windows in Brazil". Cordialement.--Pierre André (talk) 16:33, 29 February 2016 (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:
Hand-made cane juice Santo Amaro das Brotas.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2016 (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:
Stained glass windows in Brazil Saint Elisabeth of Hungary in Petrópolis Cathedral..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2016 (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:
Jesus in the house of Martha and Mary on stained glass windows in Pétropolis Cathedral.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment, with the cathedral having more than one stained glass window, I think we need the subject of the window in the scope. DeFacto (talk). 20:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment DeFacto, you are right. After several searches scop "Jesus in the house of Martha and Mary on stained glass windows" it is probably best.--Pierre André (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment, can we just add "in Pétropolis Cathedral" to limit it to images of this window, like your other image? DeFacto (talk). 06:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
      •  Done yes, thank you for this advice.--Pierre André (talk) 09:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
•  Support, it's good for me now. Best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 16:18, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:09, 6 March 2016 (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:
Protea cynaroides (The King Protea), in Stellenbosch.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:11, 15 March 2016 (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:
Horizontal stationary steam engines type D.R. Patent, used for parboiling Wood.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support. Quite good resolution and quality. -- Cirt (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz L 3500 QI?

Hallo Pierre, are you sure that this image of an Mercedes-Benz-Truck is good? For it is overexposed and the background is inclined. Further I don't like the unnatural perspective with too short focal distance. Best regards -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Hello Lothar Spurzem Personally, I find this image "QI" on January 12, 2016 and nobody has criticized my judgment. Now, just to be clear, I do not come to this topic, and I do not put more photos in "Quality Image" because they are always denigrated by the same "photographer", while they were validated by others as competent as him. Best regards.---Pierre André (talk) 21:06, 19 April 2016 (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:
Wood-turning lathes with rope fly wheels in the Museum "Bois-Jolis".
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment, there are a lot of lathes there so I think we need the lathe type added to the scope to allow for VIs of others too. DeFacto (talk). 19:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment This steering crank system, used until the late nineteenth century, consists of a Ferris wheel located at the rear of the tower, operated via a catgut. A catalog from 1896 denominates "rope fly wheels or belt" (fr="Tour à rotation continue"). --Pierre André (talk) 21:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
•  Support, useful. DeFacto (talk). 17:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Parc du Héron

Bonjour, merci pour vos photos du Parc du Héron. Toutefois, le périmètre de la réserve naturelle régionale est un peu différent de celui du parc (voir par exemple sur cette carte). Certaines de vos photos sont donc hors périmètre de la RNR. Cordialement, Pmau (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Bonjour, merci à vous Pmau pour vos précisions. En ce qui concerne le "Pavillon de chasse" j'ignorai qu'il n'était pas inclus dans le périmètre de la réserve naturelle. Par contre j'ai réalisé d'autres photos prises récemment à la limite de Forest-sur-Marcq qui sont dans le périmètre de la RNR. Je les posterai aprés vérifications. Cordialement à vous je vous souhaite un bon weekend. --Pierre André (talk) 20:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

C'est un peu la limite de ce concours qui doit montrer des espaces naturels qui possèdent des limites parfois peu évidentes sur le terrain. Bon week-end à vous. Pmau (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Ardea herodias

Bonjour, j'ai un doute sur votre photo de Grand Héron. Cette espèce est typiquement nord-américaine et n'est présente que très épisodiquement chez nous. Est-ce qu'il ne s'agit pas simplement d'un Héron cendré (Ardea cinerea), très similaire mais beaucoup plus commun ici ?? Cordialement. Pmau (talk) 16:52, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

• Merci Pmau pour cette précision. Je corrige de suite cette erreur. Bien cordialement.---Pierre André (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Toujours le Héron...

Bonjour, je vois que vous appréciez le lac du Héron. ;-) Peux-être puis-je vous suggérer d'autres espaces naturels dans les environs pour lesquels il n'y a aucune ou peu de photos :

• Annelles, Lains et Pont Pinnet
• Marais de Wagnonville
• Prés du moulin Madame

Et un peu plus loin :

• Prairies du val de Sambre
• Anciennes carrières de Cléty
• Marais de la Grenouillère
• Pâture Mille Trous
• Bois d'Encade
• Dune Marchand
• Grande-Synthe
• Lostebarne-Woohay
• Marais de Vesles-et-Caumont
• Molinet
• Mont de Couple
• Monts de Baives
• Pantegnies
• Ferme du Moulin Fontaine
• Pré communal d'Ambleteuse

Cordialement, Pmau (talk) 08:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Bonjour Pmau Merci pour votre sympathique commentaire. Résidant à Villeneuve d'Ascq, le lac du Héron est une ballade que je ratisse régulièrement depuis plus de 40 ans. Je prends bonne note des espaces naturels suggérés. Je pense peut être, pouvoir me rendre sur les quelques uns d'entre eux qui ne sont pas trop loin de chez moi avant la clôture du challenge. Cordialement.--Pierre André (talk) 09:18, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

J'imagine parfaitement que vous êtes proche du Héron pour en faire des photos quotidiennement. Ne le prenez pas mal mais je trouve dommage que certaines zones soient hyper représentées alors que d'autres n'apparaissent pas. Bonne journée. Pmau (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Vous avez raison la représentativité des zones est disproportionnée surtout en rapport à celles qui sont hyper-touristiques... ce qui n'est peut être pas le cas pour la région des "Hauts de France".- je vais voir ce que je peux faire sur le douaisis et le valenciennois. Cordialement, une bonne journée. --Pierre André (talk) 09:35, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

 Thank you. Pmau pour votre précieuse aide, sans elle je n'aurais pas eu droit à une standing ovation au top 5. Bien cordialement. --Pierre André (talk) 09:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Bonjour, j'ai eu la bonne surprise de voir arriver des photos d'endroits que je ne connaissais pas. Merci à vous d'avoir fait le déplacement dans ces RNR. Pmau (talk) 09:07, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Bonsoir, j'ai repris quelques photos de Commons pour mettre sur cette page. Merci de me dire si le crédit photo est correct. 15:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Bonsoir, le crédit est correct pour les fichiers que je publie (tant sur Wiki, que sur Flickr) sous la licence Créative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International . Cordialement.- --Pierre André (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2016 (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:
mangles Old laundry mangle..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support -- Mathieu MD (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:50, 3 June 2016 (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:
Fosse Sabatier The "Sabatier-pit" in Anzin Mining Company.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 19:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2016 (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:
Category:Statues at the Spirit way of the Ming tombs Officials of the Spirit Road. Ming Tombs, Beijing.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support useful Shuvo Mazumder (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2016 (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:
Moulin de la Victoire (Hondschoote) also called also called Mill victory..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 14:09, 15 June 2016 (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:
Rolls-Royce 20hp in Gangaramaya Temple.-Colombo.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 18:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2016 (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:
Equus przewalskii in Mongolia (Przewalski's horses), in Reserve Khustain Nuruu National Park.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment The scope is not properly formatted. The binomial name should be in italics followed by the english vernacular name in parenthesis.. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done.- Thank you for this precision.--Pierre André (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

•  Support useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:07, 23 June 2016 (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:
Replica of the Battle of Issus mosaic (in Pompeii) The House of the Faun.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2016 (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:
St. Peter Church of Flers-Bourg Villeneuve d'Ascq.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:56, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2016 (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:
Statue of Faidherbe marshal "south east exposure, front view "Place Richebé".- Lille.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment It would be good to put the view orientation. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Done.- Thank you.- --Pierre André (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment southwest exposure would be better. (pour tout les monuments pense à le mettre. Dans le cas de cette statue on serait contant de la voir de profil car elle est très différente, donc tu pourrai verser le profil avec presque le même scope en ajoutant "south east exposure" ) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Done, thank you for that clarification. (J'en prends bonne note, cordialement).--Pierre André (talk) 20:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:43, 10 July 2016 (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:
Couvent of Minimes in Lille Wharf Wault in Lille.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:43, 10 July 2016 (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:
Facade "North west" exposure, of the Temple of the Reformed Church of France in Lille.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment This one is darkie but I found this have more daylight. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 13:54, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Done a correction of daylight, perhaps is it better? --Pierre André (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment It would be good to put the view orientation. (Dans ce cas precis tu peuxajouter : "facade" et le scoop est bien caractérisé )--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Done accuracy is made .- Thanks. --Pierre André (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment I like to open MVR, cause the tightness of the top crop is a bit bothersome; and there's a version with more space at top. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 22:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Done a better frame!So, do as you judge utile.- Best regards.--Pierre André (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Now batter. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 14:27, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2016 (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 Wilgefortis in Church of St. Nicolas of Wissant.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:31, 12 July 2016 (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:
The Hamaide of Chéreng, front view of the "former Royal coach house".
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment It would be good to put the view orientation. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 17:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done orientation "Front view". --Pierre André (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Useful. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 21:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2016 (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:
Bedside the church Saint Maurice.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Very interesting but need perspective correction --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:52, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Doneperspective correction.- Thank you. --Pierre André (talk) 09:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Very good --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2016 (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:
Église Saint-Maurice de Lille - Our Lady of Grace..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Scope inappropriate. There are probably several statues of the Virgin in Lille. You have to give the places where the work is visible in the scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• ----

Scope changed from Religious statues in Lille to Église Saint-Maurice de Lille - Interieur --Pierre André (talk) 08:48, 15 July 2016 (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 Percfet now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Not really, the picture is not linked to that category. --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
• @Palauenc05 Thank you  Done I've linked the picture to that category.--Pierre André (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Fine, thanks! --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:43, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. DeFacto (talk). 21:31, 18 July 2016 (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:
Église Saint-Maurice de Lille Saint Roch and his dog.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 21:49, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose Scope inappropriate. There are probably several statues of St Roch in Lille. You have to give the places where the work is visible in the scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• ----

Scope changed from Religious statues in Lille to Église Saint-Maurice de Lille - Interieur --Pierre André (talk) 08:47, 15 July 2016 (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 Perfect now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. DeFacto (talk). 21:32, 18 July 2016 (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:
Église Saint-Maurice de Lille Christ mercy.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment, I think the top crop is too tight - can you loosen it a bit? DeFacto (talk). 21:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Lille is a big city there are several statue of Christ. The scope must give the place where the artwork is visible. I propose to change the scope for: [[:Category:Église Saint-Maurice de Lille - Interieur|Église Saint-Maurice de Lille]] - Christ mercy. (:fr:Il a l'air ancien as tu vérifié qu'il ne soit pas dans la basse Palissy?) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
• ----

Scope changed from Religious statues in Lille to Église Saint-Maurice de Lille - Interieur --Pierre André (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2016 (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".

---

(Merci, je vais procèder aux vérifications dans la base Palissy)--Pierre André (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

• @DeFacto: , OK  Done a better frame.--Pierre André (talk) 11:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Ok for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support, good for me too now, thanks. Best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 15:15, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. DeFacto (talk). 21:34, 18 July 2016 (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:
Église Saint-Maurice de Lille St Maurice and his companions ..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment translation of the caption seems doubtful, "companions" or "escort" seems better but I'm not a reference. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment OK with regard to soldiers "compagnons" it's better, --Pierre André (talk) 08:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2016 (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:
Église Saint-Maurice de Lille Storied glass Art Deco scenes from the Life of the Virgin.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Prés d'elle?

Prédelle!

J'ai discrètement modifié le scope de file:Lille Eté2016- La Treille le Retable de N.D.-du-Rosaire.jpg. Ton image est très intéressant. Il vaut mieux Altarpiece que Reredo, même si ce n'est pas faux. Bonne soirée. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

• Archaeodontosaurus  Thank you. à toi pour le changement du libellé qui ne sont pas toujours faciles à bien déterminer. J'ai don rajouté la catégorie "Predellas in France".- Bonne soirée également. Cordialement.- --Pierre André (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2016 (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:
Predella and altarpiece of N.D.du Rosaire in Lille cathedral.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Llez (talk) 11:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2016 (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:
Tabernacles in Lille Church holy Catherin (Lille).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Sharpness is poor (ISO 3200). Such images make up a tripod. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment difficult to repair, the church is particularly dark.--Pierre André (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
•  Support In most churches in France and Italy the flash and tripods are not allowed. The quality is not good but it is for this scope the best image we have and the subject is an object classified as historical monuments. It is acceptable to VI. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:04, 28 July 2016 (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:
Gravestones in Nord Gravestone of Louis François Le Comte.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 04:57, 29 July 2016 (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:
Gravestones in Nord Gravestone of Franciscus Muyssart du Cappe.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 17:14, 29 July 2016 (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:
Gravestones in Nord Gravestone of François Lespagnol écuyer sieur de Courbe.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2016 (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:
Stained glass 4 inside St.Peter's church the king and his knights pray before the bataille..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Coordinates are inaccurate --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Done correction

  Camera location	50° 34′ 44.58″ N, 3° 11′ 13.93″ E	View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMap

  . --Pierre André (talk) 08:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
  promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2016 (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:
Stained glass 5 inside St.Peter's churchCount of Saint-Pol, Walter III of Châtillon, and Guérin, bishop of Senlis..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Coordinates are inaccurate. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Done correction

  Camera location	50° 34′ 44.58″ N, 3° 11′ 13.93″ E	View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMap

  .--Pierre André (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
  promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 15:01, 31 July 2016 (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:
Stained glass 7 inside St.Peter's church Philip II blesses his army..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Coordinates are inaccurate --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

•  Done correction

  Camera location	50° 34′ 44.58″ N, 3° 11′ 13.93″ E	View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMap

  .--Pierre André (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
  Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
  promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Valued Images - Chester Cathedral updated.

Just letting you know that I have added perspective corrections to my submission which you requested for my photograph of Chester Cathedral Nave in the Valued Images section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdbeckwith (talk • contribs) 23:00, 04 August 2016 (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:
Game of the Goose "Tourn'Oie" in open-air museum of Villeneuve d'Ascq.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 11:57, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2016 (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:
Pulpits in Lille St Andrew church.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 20:58, 8 August 2016 (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:
Statues of Therese of Lisieux in France Église Saint-André de Lille.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. DeFacto (talk). 21:33, 9 August 2016 (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:
Cemetery gates of the Monchy British Cemetery.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment, I think the scope needs to be further qualified as the image is of an arch rather than of the whole cemetery. DeFacto (talk). 21:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• ----

Scope changed from Windmill British Cemetery to Cemetery gates in France maybe is it better scop?--Pierre André (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2016 (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".

---

•  Comment, sorry but checking the details it seems that there are 3 British Military cemeteries near Monchy-le-Preux, can you double-check the geocode and name details of this one please. I think it it might be the "Monchy British Cementry" (here) and not the "Windmill British Cemetery". DeFacto (talk). 20:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Comment Yes, That's the cemetery of which you speak. It lies on the road from Arras to Monchy-le-Preux, and is discovered on the Circuit No. 06: "Caribou, 10 km (Monchy-le-Preux). So I corrected my mistake  Thank you.. --Pierre André (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support, thanks for the refinement - best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 21:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:40, 11 August 2016 (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:
Paintings by Otto van Veen Adoration of the Magi and The Presentation in the Temple.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2016 (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:
Arnould de Vuez : Healing of the Paralytic.- Saint Andrew church, Lille.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Mathieu MD (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2016 (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:
Arnould de Vuez Virgin placing the order of St. Teresa of Avila under the patronage of St. Joseph.- Saint Andrew church, Lille.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:44, 12 August 2016 (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:
Paintings of the baptism of Jesus Christ in St. Stephen Church.- Lille.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

If the image was used it would be a good argument.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Comment OK! I added this photo to the article Eglise St Etienne. --Pierre André (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:48, 17 August 2016 (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:
Stained glass windows in Lille "The Annunciation" in Saint Stephan Church.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment The photo is from "Saint-Étienne" (according to fr desc), but the scope (and en desc) says "Saint Stephan". --Mathieu MD (talk) 18:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support My bad, "Saint-Étienne" seems to be "Saint-Stephan" in English... --Mathieu MD (talk) 19:08, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
    •  Comment OK I think so too, the definition should be (I think) written in English.--Pierre André (talk) 19:15, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2016 (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:
The Ascension of Christ on stained glass windows in Saint Stephan Church of Lille.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support --Mathieu MD (talk) 19:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2016 (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:
Church Saint-Étienne of Lille - Half pay paneling.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Scope weird I suggests [[:category:Église Saint-Étienne de Lille|Church ''Saint-Étienne'' of Lille]] - Half pay paneling --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Done Thanks It's better.- ----

Scope changed from Objets monuments historiques: wooden panelings to new scope Church Saint-Étienne of Lille - Half pay paneling

• 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".

---

. --Pierre André (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2016 (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:
Charles Buisine-Rigot Oak statue of the Virgin and Child known as Our Lady of Annay in Saint-Stephan church (Église Etienne) of Lille.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support useful--Grtek (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:21, 18 August 2016 (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:
Dovecotes in Pas-de-Calais "Grand'Maison" in hamelet of "Haute-Escalles" South West face..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment It would be good to put the view orientation. If it were used it would be a determining factor. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Done thank you.--Pierre André (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2016 (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:
Onze-Lieve-Vrouwkerk NE Church of Our Lady in Nieuwkerke, Heuvelland.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support ok pour me, the photo is usefull Olivier LPB (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2016 (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:
Vitraux de l'église Saint-Cornély (Carnac) Saint-Cornély.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Do you want to change your scope, to precise the church of the stained glass ? Olivier LPB (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Done ----

Scope changed from Category:Saint Cornelius on stained glass windows to Saint Cornelius on stained glass windows of Église Saint-Cornély (Carnac) --Pierre André (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2016 (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".

---

•  Comment as this nomination, I think, that is it best if we have in the scope the name of the stained glass AND the name of the church. Olivier LPB (talk) 09:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Done Thank you for your notice.--Pierre André (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Olivier LPB (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 1 September 2016 (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:
Boundary stone nr 46 in La Flamengrie.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 19:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Monuments 2016

Bonjour PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ,

En 2014, vous avez participé au concours photo Wiki Loves Monuments Belgium & Luxembourg. Nous organisons aussi ce concours de photo en 2016.

• Site web de Wiki Loves Monuments en Belgique & Luxembourg
• Site web de Wiki Loves Monuments (international, autres pays)

Nous organisons aussi 4 balades photo à Gand, Malines, Anvers et Liège. Visite : http://www.wikilovesmonuments.be/w/index.php?title=Photo_tours_September_2016/fr&setlang=fr

Soyez les bienvenus ! Romaine 18:03, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Merci à vous Romaine pour cette sympathique invitation. Etant en Bourgogne aux dates indiquées, je ne pourrai pas y participer. Bonnes balades à votre groupe, bien cordialement. --Pierre André (talk) 16:11, 9 September 2016 (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:
South face of the castle of Flers Villeneuve d'Ascq..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. INeverCry 21:48, 16 September 2016 (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:
Lanz D 7506.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

{{subst:vic:|1|0|Olivier LPB (talk) 10:47, 17 September 2016 (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:
The bell tower (sight N.E) of Saint-Pierre church of Flers-Bourg.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Olivier LPB (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Villeneuve d'Ascq WLM2016 Pigeonnier du château du Sart.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. --Hubertl 17:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Villeneuve d'Ascq WLM2016 Villa Gabrielle, côté parc.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. --Hubertl 17:40, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Villeneuve d'Ascq WLM2016 le château de Flers (4).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. --W.carter 20:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eecke WLM2016 le klockhuis de l'église Saint-Wulmar (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 Good quality. --W.carter 20:48, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 19 September 2016 (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:
Bell tower of Saint Wulmar church, exposure from East..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. INeverCry 22:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Image du jour de Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 en France, 17 September 2016

Votre photo « Quibéron VLM2016 Menhir (2) de Mané-Meur.jpg » a été choisie par les bénévoles de Wiki Loves Monuments 2016 comme image coup de cœur (ou image du jour) du 17 September 2016.

Cordialement, Lundi Novembre (talk) 16:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Villeneuve d'Ascq WLM2016 Église Saint-Pierre de Flers-Bourg (6).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 now for me. --Hubertl 21:34, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome, Dear Filemover!

---

Hi PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:

• Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
• Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
• Please know and follow the file rename guidelines.

INeverCry (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

 Thank you. INeverCry for this promotion. Best regards. --Pierre André (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge/2016 - October - Water Supply Infrastructure/Voting

Hi. You have voted incorrectly at this photo challenge. You can vote one 3, one 2 and one 1, and any number of 0 votes. You voted 3 twice (and 1 once). Please can you amend your votes or we will need to remove them. Thanks. -- 12:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello User:Colin. Sorry for this omission, I added a ranking in second position for photo challenge. Best regards.--Pierre André (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Pierre, you still have two 1st place votes. --Jarekt (talk) 03:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jarekt, thank you for your remark. In fact I removed my first appreciation for the photo "113. P1170446 Wassereinleitung". The similar photo N "19 is more expressive. Best regards.--Pierre André (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

 Thank you. --Jarekt (talk) 12:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Le Grand Canyon du Colorado en2016 (50).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. --Poco a poco 20:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bakersfield, (CA) Truck Peterbilt at Flying J Travel Plaza (en2016) (12).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. -- Johann Jaritz 12:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bakersfield, (CA) Truck Freightliner at Flying J Travel Plaza (en2016) (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 quality. -- Johann Jaritz 12:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Calico Ghost Town2016 (20).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. --A.Savin 00:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2016 (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:
"Calico lives again" memorial Calico Ghost Town.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. --Basotxerri (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2016 (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:
Allegories of Venice in the Venetian Hotel (Las vegas).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:54, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bryce Canyon Inspiration (15).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 Good quality, minimal DoF problem --The Photographer 11:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bryce Canyon en 2016 (8).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 Good quality --The Photographer 11:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bakersfield, (CA) Truck Kenworth at Flying J Travel Plaza (en2016) (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 {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Las Vegas 2016 Paris Hotel and Casino (6).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 Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bryce Canyon Inspiration (5).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. --A.Savin 17:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2016 (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:
Dilophosaurus footprint in Glen Canyon National Recreation Area ..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support best in scope --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 07:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:03, 13 December 2016 (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:
Historical landmark N°782 Calico Ghost Town.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bakersfield, (CA) Truck Peterbilt at Flying J Travel Plaza (en2016) (4).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 Weak  Support Good quality. May be better with less street at the bottom. --XRay 13:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)* Done less street at the bottom, it's better. Thank you for your advice.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 09:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zyon National Parc Crawford place (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 Good quality. --Yann 23:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zabriskies Point panoramique2016.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. --Yann 23:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zabriskie Point, Manly Beacon in Death Valley2016 (4).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. --Yann 23:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zabriskie Point, Manly Beacon in Death Valley2016 (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 Bonne qualite'. -- Ikan Kekek 00:04, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zabriskie Point, Manly Beacon in Death Valley2016 (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  Support Bien mieux que ta série des jours précédents. Et trois photos qui s'appellent pareil, ça n'aide pas !--Jebulon 22:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)*  Comment MerciJebulon pour cet encouragement.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 23:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Calico Ghost Town2016 (9).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. --Ermell 08:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Calico Ghost Town2016 (5).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. --Ermell 08:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2016 (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:
Furnace Creek Ranch Ranch Resort (USA).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment it would be useful that this image is used. . --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Done image is used. --Pierre André (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Le Grand Canyon 2016 Desert View Watchtower (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 focus to main object, but it would have ben better if you would have use more zoom (main object is quiet sharp) --Michielverbeek 06:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)* CommentOK! Thank you for your advice.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 06:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Calico Ghost Town2016 (11).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. --Moroder 11:36, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

VI candidate file moves

Hi, I noticed that your VI candidate File:Calico Ghost Town.- Bell Lane Marker.jpg had become corrupt and wasn't displaying the correct "promoted" status. The problem was caused when you renamed the original file from "Calico Ghost Town2016 (28).JPG" to "Calico Ghost Town.- Bell Lane Marker.jpg", but did not rename the candidate wrapper file too (that was still named "Commons:Valued image candidates/Calico Ghost Town2016 (28).JPG", although the rename bot had changed the file name pointed to inside). You compounded the problem by creating a new candidate wrapper file rather than renaming the existing one, and leaving the old one in the candidate list. I hope I have fixed the problem by replacing the candidate wrapper in the candidate list with the new one and requesting a delete of the old redundant VI candidate wrapper file.

I think that if you rename a VI candidate file you should:

1. Rename the image file (the bot will change all its uses to use the new name, but will not rename files which use it)
2. Rename the candidate wrapper to match (the bot will then change its use in the candidate list)

I hope that is clear. :) DeFacto (talk). 22:26, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, DeFacto  Thank you. for this good advice and for having corrected the error I made. I actually realized that the problem had been aggravated by creating a new wrapper candidate file, hence my questioning. Best regards.- --Pierre André (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bryce Canyon en 2016 (5).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}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 19 December 2016 (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:
The Lucy Bell Lane Marker in Calico Ghost Town.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Atention The scopes are inverted between the different appointments. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Done correction of this inversion. Thank you.---Pierre André (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
    • •  Question Please, it's strange that promoted status does not appear with a green border,best regard. --Pierre André (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Ok now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Copyright status of the text? Yann (talk) 12:02, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:24, 14 December 2016 (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:
Ludwig-Thoma-Straße 2/4 (Oberammergau) Germany.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. lNeverCry 22:58, 18 December 2016 (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:
Facade of Hotel Alte Post (Oberammergau) Germany.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. lNeverCry 22:59, 18 December 2016 (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:
Vaults of St. Peter und Paul (Oberammergau) Germany.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:20, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. lNeverCry 23:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Le Grand Canyon du Colorado en2016 (9).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, this one works ... good compostion that makes us feel the depth of the canyon --Daniel Case 05:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2016 (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:
USS Pampanito (SS-383).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 11:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:04, 20 December 2016 (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:
Fred Kabotie Mural in Desert View Watchtower.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Seems clearly to be the best photo of this mural on Commons. If this is the only one by Fred Kabotie in the Desert View Watchtower, I believe this should be a VI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:06, 21 December 2016 (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:
Petroglyphs in the United States at Desert View Watchtower.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Clearly the best photo of these petroglyphs on Commons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:19, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Calico Ghost Town2016 (31).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 Alright, better --Daniel Case 21:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge/2016 - December - Home appliances

I've removed your Truck Freightliner photos from the challenge. Although it shows outside and inside, it isn't a "home appliance". -- Colin (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oops,  Thank you. Colin with my apologies I had misread the challenge. Happy Christmas. --Pierre André (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2016 (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:
Klingentorturm (Rothenburg ob der Tauber) (Germany) view direction N.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Happy holidays! 2017! ;)

		* * * * * * * Happy Holidays 2017 ! * * * * * * *
		* Merry Christmas! Happy New Year! * Joyeux Noël ! Bonne année! * Frohes Weihnachten! Frohes Neues Jahr! * Счастливого Рождества! С Новым годом! * ¡Feliz Navidad y próspero año nuevo! * Щасливого Різдва! З Новим роком! -- George Chernilevsky talk 18:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

• Merci George Chernilevsky

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year holidays to you too

. --Pierre André (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2016 (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:
Women fromSouthern Ndebele people.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment We must add a geocoding. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  •  Done add a geocoding.- thank you for your advice.--Pierre André (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2016 (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:
Lakefront on the Chiemsee General view orientation S.E..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment It would be good to put the view orientation. You need a caption in English. We must add a geocoding. Pay attention to the scope syntax.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Done view orientation and I've corrected the scope syntax.--Pierre André (talk) 10:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• The caption is missing in English. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Done Adding a definition in English "The steam tray at GSTADT on the Chiemsee. The island Fraueninsel in background. Upper Bavaria.  Thank you. (Merry christmas to you!)--Pierre André (talk) 10:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2016 (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:
Sebastian Altar of the Minster St. George, Dinkelsbühl (Germany).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:53, 25 December 2016 (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:
The French cemetery and Ossuary Kemmelberg Belgique.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. lNeverCry 02:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Las Vegas 2016 Paris Hotel and Casino (6).JPG, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Las Vegas 2016 Paris Hotel and Casino (6).JPG has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Le Grand Canyon du Colorado en2016 (24).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. --Moroder 07:54, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rotenburg (22).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 to me now, --Cayambe 13:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gstadt am Chiemsee, Lakefront (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 Quality photo of this view, in my opinion, but if I look really carefully, I see at least one very subtle dust spot near the upper left corner, so have a look. -- Ikan Kekek 13:42, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2016 (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:
Neck rings worn by women Ndebele women.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Best in scope on Commons. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:24, 28 December 2016 (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:
Freedom statue at Wallace Monument Stirling, view from SE.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. lNeverCry 07:04, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Friedrich Overbek Italia et Germania.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. --Uoaei1 22:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 30 December 2016 (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:
Collegiate Church of Saint-Ursmer, view SW (Belgium).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Olivier LPB (talk) 23:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Joseph Karl Stieler portrait de Johann Wolfgang von Goethe.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 --Uoaei1 22:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! F. Ludwig von Catel.- Festival near Pozzuoli.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. --Ermell 08:19, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! München, der Frauenkirche.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 Quality is OK, in my opinion, but Pierre, I don't agree with your filename, since only the upper reaches of the Frauenkirche's towers are seen. Why isn't Marienhof in your filename instead? -- Ikan Kekek 13:47, 25 December 2016 (UTC)* Comment It is a small error on my part, I will be more attentive in my filename, to the future.--PIERRE ANDRE LECLERCQ 21:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC) OK, but how about changing this filename now? -- Ikan Kekek 05:18, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2016 (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:
Crypt of Saint Mary Magdalen's Basilica on Vezelay.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Oppose - File:Vézelay-Église de la Madeleine-Reliquaire-monstrance 1.jpg has a bigger lens flare but is in my opinion best on Commons in depicting the relic itself, as it's brighter and less of the relic is blocked by an angel figure in that photo. However, if you redefine your scope to "Crypt of Saint Mary Magdalen's Basilica on Vezelay" as a whole, I would support, as your photo clearly offers the best comprehensive coverage of the different elements of the crypt in Category:Crypt of Saint Mary Magdalen's Basilica on Vezelay. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Done I've redefined the scope to "Crypt of Saint Mary Magdalen's Basilica on Vezelay". Thank you for your avice. --Pierre André (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
• You're welcome.  Support in the new scope, per my remarks above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. lNeverCry 02:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Claude Monet.- Le Pont d'Argenteuil.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 --The Photographer 10:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Willem Maris.- Polder Landscape with Cattle.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 --The Photographer 10:30, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! J.F. Millet.- Farmer grafting a tree.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 --The Photographer 10:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 1 January 2017 (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:
Riesengebirge landscape with rising fog 1820s paintings by Caspar David Friedrich.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Seems to be the only image of this painting on Commons, and is useful as such. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! L'écluse d' Escommes à Maconge sur le canal de Bourgogne (2).ogv, 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. --Ermell 21:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vincent Van Gogh.- Vue d'Arles.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. --A.Savin 15:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)