User:Martinvl/Promotions 2015

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:
Scotney Castle SW view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Scope must be linked to a category. --P e z i (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
  •  Done Martinvl (talk) 21:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
•  Best in Scope and useful. --P e z i (talk) 21:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. P e z i (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2014 (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:
Weather vane on the White Tower, Tower of London.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2015 (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:
St Michaels Building, Chester.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Previous reviews4

•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:08, 23 January 2015 (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:
Great Windmill of Skerries.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support, best in this scope. –Be..anyone (talk) 21:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Question The windmill is indeed worthy, but this review should be about this photo, not the windmill itself. This is one of several in the category Category:Skerries Windmill, what differentiates this one do you think?. -- PlasmaBall (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment I think it is wrong to put it in both the Category:Skerries Mills category and its child category Category:Skerries Windmill. The latter is the more specific, and the one where other similar photos exist. -- PlasmaBall (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Comment True: there is an over-categorization specifically. Correction made. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2015 (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:
Yashica 635 TLR camera with telephoto lens in situ..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Scope too broad; there should be in the scope, the exact model.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• @User:Archaeodontosaurus: Scope changed to reflect your comments -- Martinvl (talk) 11:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose The scope is now way too narrow. Currently this is the only image in that scope, which seems to me to be be an extremely unlikely subject for any Commons search. -- PlasmaBall (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Question Bearing in mind that Archaeodontosaurus said that the exact model should be part of the scope, what text do you propose? -- Martinvl (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The scope is well written. Our basic photographic data, grown every day. Try to anticipate possible conflicts by specific scopes. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

A more acceptable scope would be TLR camera with telephoto lens in situ, in my opinion. PlasmaBall (talk) 18:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

•  Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2015 (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:
Room temperature thermometer showing kelvins.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Excellent, unique in scope, good idea.--Jebulon (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2015 (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:
Langalibibalele.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Very useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:17, 4 February 2015 (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 Dom Pedro IV, Praça do Rossio.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Scope must linked to category. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

This has been done. Martinvl (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2015 (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:
Original definition of the (kilo)metre.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:37, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 15:03, 16 June 2015 (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:
Milestone on Telford's road through North Wales.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:25, 23 August 2015 (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 Mary Magdalene's Church, Croome D'Abitot.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support All criteria met. Seems like it could use some clockwise rotation, though? --El Grafo (talk) 09:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment I have done the rotation. Martinvl (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 12:10, 25 August 2015 (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:
Chinese Bridge at Croome Court.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Very good image; look at the change in the scope syntax. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 12:11, 25 August 2015 (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:
Graves of the victims of the 1899 armoured train ambush at Chieveley, South Africa..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support  Oppose Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC) Picture is unsharp. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:15, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@Jacek Halicki: Unsharp but Pro? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 13:29, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

•  Oppose unsharp, the relevant graves are hardly visible. --El Grafo (talk) 13:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Info This image is a digitisation of a picture that I took 40 years ago and is, as far as I know, this is one of two images that we have in Commons relating to this skirmish. (The other is here also taken by me 40 years ago). Since this is a candidate for a "Valued image" rather than a "quality image", the sharpness need only be "reasonable". Until somebody presents a better image related to this scope, I believe that this image meets all the criteria of a "Valued Image". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinvl (talk • contribs) 10:02, 25 August 2015‎ (UTC)
• OK, let's do a full review along COM:VICR:

1. Most valuable in scope: [OK] That's easy, as it's the only one.
2. Scope: A) I'm not sure if this subject is notable enough to have it's own scope. Here it says Buildings, like other places, should be of more than local interest to justify a scope. But then again, the graves were depicted in a 1900 issue of The Illustrated London News[1], so we're probably [OK] fine in that regard. B) [No] However, the scope currently links to two different categories, both of which are pretty broad. I'd propose to change the scope to something like Chieveley, KwaZulu-Natal, graves of the victims of the armoured train ambush 1899. (note the new category).
3. Must illustrate its subject well: You are right, quality/sharpness is not that much of an issue here. However, the framing is not that great: edges are cut off and you can barely see the stone cover of the big grave. I'd prefer something like this or this, but let's not be picky for pictures from this part of the world.
4. Is fully described: ([OK]) For some reason I thought this was part of the main cemetery of Chieveley and even created a category for that. you may want to add to the description that this is a small cemetery on its own. Also, it is categorized as a monument: Is there any reference/ID for that?
5. Is geocoded: [OK]
6. Is well categorized: [OK] I've added Category:Chieveley, KwaZulu-Natal, not sure if we should create an own category for this little graveyard

I'm tending towards "support" now if we can agree on a scope. --El Grafo (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comments. I have also had trouble getting the correct wording for the - the graveyard itself is not particularly notable - the notable part is that Churchill was captured during the ambush. There is a memorial stone (see here, about 100 metres from the graveyard. The memorial stone is clearly visible from the road, but the cemetrey is hidden by a railway embankment. This leads me to think that the correct scope would be "Graveyard from the armoured train ambush in which Winston Churchill was captured". Martinvl (talk) 17:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
• Maybe a better rewording of the scope is "Graves of the victims of the armoured train ambush in which Winston Churchill was captured (1899)". There are still two categories, but they are much narrower in scope. Martinvl (talk) 06:23, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• I think I may have got it: Why not handle this event like we would handle any recent plane heist? Create a category for it and use that for the main scope, adding the graves of the victims as sub-scope. That solves both the question of what to link and how to call the scope. We don't need to put Churchill in the scope, as that connection is made through the Category. After all, we wouldn't mention Lynrd Skynrd in the title of an article about their plane crash as well, right? So my new proposal would be a simple 1899 train ambush in Chieveley, graves of the victims. --El Grafo (talk) 08:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Graves from the ambushed armoured train at Chieveley during the Boer War to Graves of the victims of the 1899 armoured train ambush at Chieveley, South Africa --Martinvl (talk) 16:03, 26 August 2015 (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 now. --El Grafo (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 29 August 2015 (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 Vyne - North West aspect.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment it seems that the image is tilted to the left. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

•  Info Corrected. Martinvl (talk) 06:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:58, 11 September 2015 (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:
Coat of arms of Lyme Regis.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2015 (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:
Moving-vane ammeter.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support That's what I call a useful image! --El Grafo (talk) 08:23, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 17:08, 26 September 2015 (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:Stenocereus pruinosus.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Much better. Charles (talk) 11:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC) Scores:

1. Stenocereus pruinosus – 94.jpg: 0
2. Stenocereus pruinosus (5729863325).jpg: +1 <--
=>
File:Stenocereus pruinosus - 94.jpg: Declined.
File:Stenocereus pruinosus (5729863325).jpg: Promoted. <--

-- DeFacto (talk). 20:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Nice! Just saw this while looking at my "good images" I'd uploaded, and I didn't remember nominating the image. So, thank you! :) (btw, I added some categories) Josve05a (talk) 02:53, 17 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:
Royal Albert Hall (interior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment No linked to Category in Commons. --KSK (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Corrected. Martinvl (talk) 17:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

•  Support Best in scope IMO. --KSK (talk) 17:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
•  Question, with the scope qualified as "interior", why did you choose Category:Royal Albert Hall rather than Category:Interior of the Royal Albert Hall as the linked category? DeFacto (talk) 18:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Martinvl: did you have a reason for choosing the less appropriate category to link the scope to, or is it a mistake? DeFacto (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• @DeFacto: There was a possibility that somebody had a competitor image that was catagorised only at the more general level or under a particular concert. By linking to the more general level, that competitor image would be included should one clock the "Good Picture" icon. Martinvl (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment @Martinvl: just checking in Commons:Valued image scope#Links in the scope suggests (to me) that the more specific category is the more appropriate. DeFacto (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:27, 4 December 2015 (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:
Early 19th century Royal Mail Coach (half-rear).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 01:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:14, 4 December 2015 (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:
Ceratotherium simum simum (Southern white rhinoceros).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment: This image shows the the wide mouth of the animal very clearly. The word "White" is a corruption of the word "wide". The German name "Breitmaulnashorn" retains the name "Broad" ("Breit..."). The vegetation in this picture is typical of the Karoo (a semidessert area) rather than Zululand where it was rescued from extinction. Martinvl (talk) 12:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

•  Support After re-reading en:Rhinoceros#Characteristics and en:White_rhinoceros#Description, I've come the the conclusion that out of the current candidates this one shows characteristic features of this species best: two horns, hairy ears, broad mouth, humped back/neck, 3 toes. May not be from the original native range, but the species seems to occur the "in the wild" today, right? --El Grafo (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment I agree that this submission depicts the rhinoceros better than any of the other submissions, so I have investigated the habitat more carefully. I have certainly found a number of references to black rhino being found close to Cape Town in the mid-seventeenth century, but not the white rhino. If the white rhino is able to live in this nature reserve without human intervention, then I am open to the suggestion that prior to the Europeans settling in the Cape Province, its natural habitat included this area.

PS, I am not a biologist as such, but many years ago I took part in a four-day escorted hike through the Umfolozi Game Park.

Martinvl (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Scores:

1. Ceratotherium simum simum (Rhinocéros blanc du Sud) - 385.jpg: -1
2. White Rhinoceros1.jpg: +1 <--
3. White Rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum) (11491982094).jpg: 0
4. White Rhino (Ceratotherium simum) (18081355260).jpg: 0
5. MPA White Rhino.jpg: 0
=>
File:Ceratotherium simum simum (Rhinocéros blanc du Sud) - 385.jpg: Declined.
File:White Rhinoceros1.jpg: Promoted. <--
File:White Rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum) (11491982094).jpg: Declined.
File:White Rhino (Ceratotherium simum) (18081355260).jpg: Declined.
File:MPA White Rhino.jpg: Declined.

--DeFacto (talk). 22:42, 4 December 2015 (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:
Mouth of the Tugela River.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment, @Martinvl: lovely image, but the geocode locates to Egypt, about 100km south of Cairo. Could it be a confusion between northern and southern hemispheres? -- DeFacto (talk). 19:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment OK - Just checking that you knew the difference between the Nile and the Tugela. :-) Martinvl (talk) 19:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Support Very good --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 01:52, 6 December 2015 (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:
Dutch 18th century two pound naval cannon.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support, best in scope. The chosen category needs some housekeeping though! DeFacto (talk). 10:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Heraldy at the Castle of Good Hope.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. --Medium69 11:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:42, 13 December 2015 (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:
Heraldry of the VOC directorate.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Nicely presented and didactic. Charles (talk) 10:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2015 (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:
Mimetes cucullatus (Common mimetes or red pagoda) - inflorescence.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 22:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose The current scope is the default reference to the habitus. In this case this is the best: file:Mimetes cucullatus - Rooistompie - Cape 1.jpg. If the scope is limited to flower then the image is better. Beware the binomial must be italicized. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Archaeodontosaurus: Hi - I note your suggestions about changing the scope of this submission. I agree with writing "Mimetes cucullatus" in italics and I am happy to add "Flower" to the scope. I do not agree with the common name being "Rooistompie". I checked the Kirstenbosch and they show "Rooistompe" as an Afrikaans name and give a number of different English names. I have added an Afrikaans language text. I suggest that since we use English, that we use "(common mimetess or red padoga)" as the common name for purposes of the scope. Also, I do not believe that it is normal to add the locality of a plant to a scope - see for example. Martinvl (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

 Comment @Martinvl: I think you have misunderstood Archaeodontosaurus's remarks. As I read it, "file:Mimetes cucullatus - Rooistompie - Cape 1.jpg" is an image file, and not his suggested scope. He is saying that this other image is the better image for the default (habitus) scope you have nominated in. He is also saying (I think) that if you add the word "flower" to your scope, then your image is the better in that. Hope that helps. DeFacto (talk). 20:37, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

 Comment As far as I can see, it is not a flower but an inflorescence. --Llez (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@DeFacto: , @Archaeodontosaurus: - I misread Archaeodontosaurus' posting and I have struck out a large section of my response to him. Following on @Llez: 's obnservation, I propose changing the scope to "Mimetes cucullatus (Common mimetes or red pagoda) - inflorescence"

I agree with this proposal. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Mimetes cucullatus (Red pagoda) to Mimetes cucullatus (Common mimetes or red pagoda) - inflorescence --Martinvl (talk) 07:57, 12 December 2015 (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 with new scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 10:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me --Llez (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 23:15, 14 December 2015 (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:
Informal settlement adjoining Caledon, South Africa.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 15:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose (pending outcome), I have numerous problems with the scope here. Firstly, it is too broad - this presumably is in, or is near, the named settlement, so the scope should contain that name to prevent the exclusion of scopes for other such places. Secondly, I'm not sure the word "rural" should be there, these places are by fact of their density and proximity to a larger town urban. Thirdly, the chosen category is not representative of this type of community in South Africa, these: Category:Townships in South Africa, Category:Slums in South Africa and even Category:Ntuzuma and Category:Uitenhage are probably all better for South Africa. In fact, you might first consider trying to rationalise all of these categories and create a tidier category hierarchy incorporating them all by country, town, etc (I'd help with the donkey work if we can agree a schema) - then you could link specifically to "Caledon Shanty Town", or whatever the most specific to this image becomes. Fourthly, you might consider using the word "township" which is commonly used in South Africa rather in place of "shanty town". And finally, I think te place name is "Caledon" and not "Caledeon" (for the file name and in the descriptions). DeFacto (talk). 20:10, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@DeFacto: I take your point on the spelling of Caledon. I propose withdrawing this nomination and resubmitting it under the correct spelling.

The word "township" is incorrect – see its legal meaning. I am happy to replace the word "shanty town" with "informal settlement". This artcile also has the sentence "Townships sometimes have large informal settlements nearby". What you see in this image is one such informal settlement. I don't know what the sanitation arrangements are.

You said that this type of settlement is "not representative of this type of community in South Africa". Which type of community are you talking about? On my last trip to South Africa I saw a number of large estates aimed at the black communities which were rows and rows of identi-houses. I also saw huge shanty towns outside Johannesburg in an area that was open fields when I lived there.

I am happy to replace the word "Rural" with "small town" (which is what Caledon is). I don't know whether this particular settlement justifies its own scope – I believe it to be typical of many informal settlements adjoining small towns in South Africa. The settlements that you named are all attached to large towns or cities.

The scope that I propose when I resubmit it is "Typical informal settlement adjoining a small South African town". None of the maps that looked at have named the settlement. Martinvl (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

@Martinvl: you could just rename it on-the-fly, the response time is usually just a few minutes for a "move", I have done it in a couple of nominations. You need to adjust the candidate page appropriately too.

You misread my third point, it is the category you chose to link to that I was arguing was not representative (my words: "the chosen category is not representative") and not the settlement (your words: "said that this type of settlement is [not representative]"). And you did not address the point about poor categorisation for these images.

Additionally, I think your new scope is still too wide, it should include "Caledon" - to avoid precluding VIs of other such settlements - how about: "Informal settlement adjoining Caledon". DeFacto (talk). 07:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

 I withdraw my nomination I need to fix the name "Caledon". Martinvl (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC) Change of name has been done. Martinvl (talk) 09:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

@Martinvl: you forgot to rename this candidate page appropriately too (which I mentioned above) but I've done it now, to fix the red link in the candidate list. DeFacto (talk). 18:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Rural South African shanty town to Informal settlement adjoining Caledon, South Africa --Martinvl (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2015 (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, best in scope. I couldn't decide whether you should have used Category:Caledon, Western Cape or the present Category:Shanty towns for the scope link, so I am happy with your decision. DeFacto (talk). 20:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support useful. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 01:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Perfect now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:14, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2015 (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:
Vergelegen Estate library front view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 11:44, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Usefull. ~ Moheen ^(talk) 12:01, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 21 December 2015 (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:
Witches Scale,Oudewater, Netherlands.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Picture is tilted. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

•  Support Although it is not mandatory for the VI, it would be nice to straighten it. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 12:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 10:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

--Llez (talk) 07:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC)