User talk:Eusebius/Archives/Promotions/May 2009

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Effaceur ouvert.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 -- Pro2 11:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nantes - château - tour du vieux donjon.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good work. Nice composition with modern tower there too. --Karora 10:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grenoble - lion de Saint-Laurent.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 portrait itself crisp and good details --Mbdortmund 13:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Monoski.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--Eusebius (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Etat fasciste, sarkommence (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 OK --Ianare 18:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fontainebleau - aigle impériale.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 DOF could be better but good enough --Ianare 22:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Ulysses S. Grant.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Oppose bad crop of original; image unrestored besides having said crop, which removes damaged areas, but ruins the composition. Any competent restorationist could get a much better crop out of this. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• As the nominator of the competitor, please do not vote. Also, your comment is not related to any of the VI criteria. This is neither QIC nor FPC. --Eusebius (talk) 05:56, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The damage is visible even at thumbnail resolution, and even moreso at review. That white spot on his beard? That's damage, not reality. That bump beelow his cheek? Damage. That awkward crop at the bottom? Came from hacking away at the original. That's not dandruff on his collar, it's damage, etc, etc. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Probably true, but again, the picture is largely above the quality criteria for the VI status (which does not focus on technical quality). --Eusebius (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Support (Minor) quality issues aside, I prefer photographic portraits over illustrations/engravings for people scopes. I do like how the other one shows his important achievements.. but when I consider VIs, I think of what image I would pick to go in the top right-hand corner of the subject's Wikipedia article. This one would be it. However, this is a weak support and I hope it's not the only/deciding vote. Rocket000 (talk) 20:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Per Rocket's reasoning. Then two weak make a strong. Lycaon (talk) 10:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Ulysses S. Grant from West Point to Appomattox.jpg: 0
2. Ulysses Grant 1870-1880.jpg: +2
=>
File:Ulysses S. Grant from West Point to Appomattox.jpg: Declined.
File:Ulysses Grant 1870-1880.jpg: Promoted.

--Eusebius (talk) 14:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trompette - premier piston - éclaté perspective.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 4th element from top is a bit weird crop, but otherwise great --Ianare 06:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC) I had a difficult time with this one... :-\ --Eusebius 07:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dijon - Tour de croisée de l'ancienne cathédrale Saint-Etienne.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 Some overexposure but well balanced overall --Ianare 21:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dijon - Palais des ducs - Minerve crop 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}}}

--Eusebius (talk) 12:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chartres - portail sud - tympan.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 Nice. Yann 09:07, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grenoble - Sainte-Marie-d'en-haut - plafonds.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 Very good! Yann 22:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grenoble - Fontaine au lion.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments ok --Berthold Werner 12:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grenoble - Sainte-Marie-d'en-haut - choeur des religieuses.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 lighting --Ianare 21:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fontainebleau - statue François Protheau.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment Can you rotate CCW by 0.1 degree? Maedin 07:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC) If I do, the top horizontal line in the wall appears tilted, and it is quite visible. It attracts the eye because it is prominent and close to the border, that's why I have chosen it as a reference. --Eusebius 07:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC) I was using the base as a reference—that's what was drawing my eye. But no matter. Maedin 07:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC) I have uploaded a tilted version. No big difference for me, after all. --Eusebius 07:54, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Henri de Lacaze-Duthiers.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 light a little harsh but good overall --Ianare 00:12, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Henri de Lacaze-Duthiers.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support There a few more details in the face in the bronze alternative, but the flash lightning, and background is quite terrible and distracting in that one. The nominated image, on the other hand has much better lightning and background as well as overall better image quality. Thus, I prefer the nominated image, and it fulfills other criteria (geo not applicable in this case). --Slaunger (talk) 10:27, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 09:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)