User:Martinvl/Promotions 2018

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gnarled oak, Virginia Water.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. --Trougnouf 00:15, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! GiraldilloFromAlcazar.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. --Smial 15:57, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 6 March 2018 (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:
Totem Pole, Virginia Water.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope I agree. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2018 (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:
Effect of different materials on Heat conduction.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment, how confident are we that the file description and scope are correct here? Could it be that this image is not showing the effect of the earth's heat being conducted through the concrete, but the effect of the heat retention properties or the chemical composition of the concrete? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @DeFacto: We can discount your suggestion of the chemical composition of the concrete. If the chemical composition of the concrete was of importance, it would react every time that there was rain or snow and I know for a fact that those stones have been there for at least 24 years and have shown no signs of any chemical "corrosion".

That leaves the suggestion that residual heat in the concrete could have been responsible. The best "proof" that I had was when I was walking the dog this afternoon. The pavements were virtually clear apart from a short stretch that went over a culvert that carried a stream. That section of pavement had ice on it. I attribute the ice to the fact that there was a hollow under the bridge which prevented the earth's heat from being conducted to the pavement.

Finally, I did a few calculations which convinced me that there was not enough residual heat to melt the ice. You can do them yourself - the information that you need is at Latent heat, Thermal conduction and Heat capacity.

Martinvl (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Support. I suppose this is one of the best examples of heat conduction easily understood by the common man. Voltmetro 11:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! DomesticSolarHeater SouthAfrica.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 photo could have been slightly sharper. But good enough for me.--Famberhorst 05:39, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 28 March 2018 (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:
Theological Seminary, Stellenbosch.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:09, 31 March 2018 (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:
Liliesleaf Main house, side view from the East.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment, there is a disturbing discontinuity (stitching or cloning error?) running approximately vertically through the image, about 5% in from the left edge. It manifests itself particularly obviously as a dark blotch in the sky at the top edge of the image, as a floating part of a tree branch and an irregular windowsill on the leftmost of the two small square windows and an irregularity in the bottom course of bricks in the background building and as a discontinuity in the kerb along the footpath by the manhole cover about halfway up the image. Can this be fixed? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:00, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
  •  Done Martinvl (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
    •  Question: Martinvl, from your edit summary on the image ("Tidied up where radio masts had been removed") I gather that you have "airbrushed-out" some "radio masts". Could these have actually been the lightning masts that led the police to raid the farm in the first place - on the mistaken belief that were radio antennae? If they are, then don't you think they should be left in the picture as being of significant historical importance? This BBC article mentions an antenna, and this paper describes, in relation to the search for the sources of "subversive" radio transmissions, that "SACSA then searched for visibly suspicious equipment such as antennas on properties in the area. Liliesleaf had two lightning conductors next to the main house". -- DeFacto (talk). 08:52, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
      •  Info@DeFacto: Point taken - there was no mention of the lightning conductors in the literature when I visited the site. I have no replaced the image by an older version showing the lightning conductors. Martinvl (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
        • Okay, a useful image now, but not of the main front of the building, so I suppose we need the view direction in the scope to leave room for a VI of the front view, if one appears in the future. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Liliesleaf Main house to Liliesleaf Main house, side view from the East --Martinvl (talk) 22:26, 1 April 2018 (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".

---

• @DeFacto:  Done
•  Support, useful now and unique in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:51, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:24, 4 April 2018 (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:
Liliesleaf Outbuildngs.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Useful and a nice pic. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2018 (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:
Portside of the Shamrock, an 1899 sailing barge viewed from the front..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support, useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:55, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:46, 10 April 2018 (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:
Guildford Guildhall clock.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope; shows the detail nicely and has correct perspective. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:00, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment - You didn't know to change the status to "supported", or you forgot. Either way, I took care of it for you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Guildford clock from the other side

•  Oppose, pending the removal of the disturbing horizontal discontinuity, smudge marks and remnants of an erased cable or wire that went across the bottom of the photo, from the loop sticking out of the wall bottom left, and across in front of the date plate beneath the clock. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose Actually for this type of image I think the cable has to go back in. Charles (talk) 08:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Neutral now. Charles (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

•  Question@DeFacto and Charlesjsharp: Do I remove the cable from the image completely, or do I reinstate it? The cable in question has nothing to do with the clock, passing 3 to 4 metres in front of the clock. The whole of the Guildford High Street is crossed by cables, as is shown in the image opposite. I am in favour of removing it completely.Martinvl (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment I think you need to take an image where the cables don't get in the way, or leave them in 14:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment, if you can remove it (and the loop thing) cleanly and without leaving obtrusive fragments and marks, then the image would be more useful, IMHO. But if you can't do it tidily, then leave it in. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@DeFacto:  Done Martinvl (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

•  Support, okay for me now. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2018 (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:
Sydney Harbour Bridge hinge.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Very useful, best in scope and with more description than the other photo in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! AllSaintsChurchFleet GableAfterFile.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 --Halavar 18:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 19 April 2018 (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:
Muncaster Castle from the south-east.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Obviously best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:26, 1 June 2018 (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:
Torpantau Tunnel eastern portal.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in Scope, Useful and Used. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 14:26, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:12, 7 July 2018 (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:
Crickhowell Bridge viewed from the downstream side..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Oppose This is a good photo but I think that this photo depicts the scope better. Nevertheless, your photo was taken from unusual place, so if you change a scope to, for example, "Crickhowell Bridge, view from ...", I will change my opinion and support this nomination. Voltmetro 13:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Crickhowell Bridge to Crickhowell Bridge viewed from the downstream side. --Martinvl (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2018 (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".

---

• @Voltmetro: Scope changed as suggested. Martinvl (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
•  Support All remarks were corrected. Voltmetro 16:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Sixflashphoto (talk) 03:57, 11 July 2018 (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:
Hardknott Roman fort principia..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support IMO Best in Scope, Useful and Used. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Sixflashphoto (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2018 (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:
Tretower Castle from the south.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support I made a slight scope change. Useful and Used. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Sixflashphoto (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2018 (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:
Malpas Tunnel from the south west.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in Scope, Useful and Used -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 06:25, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Sixflashphoto (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2018 (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 the city of Nijmegen.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and Used. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Sixflashphoto (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! FleetPond SlipwayDepthGauge.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. --Ermell 19:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! NijmegenCoatOfArms.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. --Pudelek 12:48, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 30 July 2018 (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:
Monument to Ernest Walton by Eilís O’Connell.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Very neat sculpture, Best in Scope, Useful and Used. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 15:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

* Oppose for now, as I think that the description in the image file for this work of art should include the name of the piece (Apples and Atoms I think), the artist's name (Eilís O’Connell) and the date of the work (2013?) and that the scope should, as is usual here for works of art, be the title of the work and the artist's name. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:26, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment@DeFacto: Your comments are noted. Thank you for the information regarding the sculptor - no mention of her was made on the plaque alongside the sculpture (which I also photographed for my own reference purposes). I have updated the description to reflect your note and I found a suitable citation which I have included in the description. I also noted your comments about the scope of the file concerned. Since the sculpture was commissioned to commemorate Walton's life rather than to present a work of art by O'Connell, I think it more appropriate that Walton's name be associated with the scope rather then O'Connell's name. Also in accordance with the page Commons:Valued image scope, the scope that I have chosen is generic - there could well be other memorials to commemorate Walton, but this one is the best (at least in Commons). Martinvl (talk) 15:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• I'm glad to see more information reflected in the description. This is also an interesting case and I'd like another person to weigh in on their opinion of the formatting of a scope for a work of art commissioned to commemorate someone else. I first thought of this along the lines I believe Martinvl thought but when thought of as a work of art DeFacto's points are entirly valid. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
• Not all VI submissions of pieces of art include the artist's name. For example DeFacto submitted this one by Scott Sutherland, this one by Nils Aas, this one by Harryhausen and Knowles and no doubt, many more, all without the artist's name in the scope. Martinvl (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment, as the file description is good now I've struck my 'oppose'. As for the scope, I'm not going to oppose over that, although I would prefer to see it less general to allow room for other, as yet uncovered, monuments to Walton to have VIs too. With regard to the scopes of old VIs, I wouldn't necessarily take them as precedents as we know that best practice evolves, rather than is prescribed, here. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:12, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
•  Oppose The status of artwork is obvious. The scope must give the name of the work and the name of the author. We would be rude people if we did this insult to a lady. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment@Archaeodontosaurus: In my view any description of a work of art (including a VI scope) should reflect any notice that accompanies that work of art. We should use our own description only if that proves insufficient. In this case, I have added a photograph of the notice that accompanies this particular work of art to the main description. You will notice that it is engraved into the plinth of the sculpture and contains Walton's name, but not the name of the sculptress. Martinvl (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Monument to Ernest Walton to Monument to Ernest Walton by Eilís O’Connell --Martinvl (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2018 (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".

---

@Sixflashphoto and Archaeodontosaurus: I have changed the scope of my VI submission "Ernest Walton Memorial, Dublin.jpg". User:Sixflashphoto will need to reconfirm his/her "support" vote for the vote to stand. Archaeodontosaurus might like to reconsider his "oppose" vote. Martinvl (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

•  Support I really like the scope now. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 17:12, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment No more opposition for this juditious scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:44, 5 August 2018 (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:
Minley Manor from the south.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:26, 9 August 2018 (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:
Dorp Street, Bo-Kaap, looking downhill.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Previous reviews

•  Support Well-described, well-categorized, and geocoded. In use at several Wikipedias. Of the images in Category:Dorp Street, Cape Town, I think this one best illustrates the downhill view by including all the elements that make the area unique. -- clpo13_(talk) 23:29, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Sixflashphoto (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2018 (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:
Mary Queen of Scots bedchamber, Bolton Castle.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. --Yann (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stellenbosch postboxes.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 A bit of green CA but ok --Poco a poco 17:04, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 22 October 2018 (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:
Exposed chimney flue, Middleham Castle.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope, educational, geolocalized and with notes. Skimel (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:11, 25 October 2018 (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:
Medieval cistern of Lorca Castle.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Useful, best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Happy holidays! 2019! ;)

			* Happy Holidays 2019, Martinvl! *
			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 08:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)