User talk:Peulle/Archive 1

Drammen tollsted

Hei! Du har lastet opp et bilde som heter Drammen tollsted til Wiki Loves Monuments. Kan du ta en titt på diskusjonssiden til bildet: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Drammen_tollsted.JPG Jeg lurer på om det er riktig bygning eller om den du har tatt bilde av også tilhører tollboden. Mvh.Anne-Sophie Ofrim (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

QIC

Hi there. In Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list, oppose = decline, and support = promotion. If a nom has already been marked as promoted (declined) and you want to oppose (support), then it's to be marked as discuss. No need to support (oppose) candidacies already marked for promotion (decline). Please read the guidelines. --A.Savin 22:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! :) --Peulle (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

QI procedures

a few minutes before you have confirmed that you have understood that during the course of a discussion between a assessor and the nominator there is no place for overruling. And then this... Problems like a tilted horizon is not a reason at all to decline a nomination. This will be checked and changed by the nominator in short. After changing, it will be cleared by the primary assessor. Please don´t act too overambitioned. --Hubertl 15:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

• Fair enough, but I have seen other users decline/oppose because of tilt, so it's hard to say how much is enough to decline, especially when the Guidelines say that: "Images should not be unintentionally tilted." I will therefore let my assessment stand, in accordance with these guidelines. --Peulle (talk) 16:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • We all try to be in good relation to each other - avoiding quarrels. The most important thing is not the assessing itself, it´s the learning from others. Therefore it is a good practice not to overrule and not to affront someone. After a while, almost everyone here is getting a new view onto his own pictures, but that needs some time. Thats, what QI is for. After a while - and you can see it very good with most of the participants - they don´t upload and nominate pictures without a due dilligence for each picture by themselfes. Doing it right is the same effort as doing it wrong. --Hubertl 17:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • A little more restraint wouldn´t be wrong at the beginning until you have learned the strings. --Milseburg (talk) 17:25, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your comments, I will use the "comment" feature when I'm unsure.--Peulle (talk) 17:28, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

As so often

it needs some time to get into a new task, it works fine now! Thanks for partizipating the Quality image assessing process! --Hubertl 15:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

File:Cataratas no Parque Nacional do Iguaçu.jpg

Hello Peulle, thank you very much for reviewing this image. I tried to fix the problem using the Fix-CA plugin in Gimp, and also using the channel mixer, but when I fix the green CA in the trees, something even worst appears somewhere else... Can you please tell me if the image is fixable, and if there is any way I can do it? Thank you, -- Darwin ^Ahoy! 01:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

• @DarwIn: Hello. :) I have made some annotations in the image so you can see the green I'm talking about. Is it fixable? I'm not sure; maybe you need a RAW version of the image.
  • Hello Peulle: Thank you very much for pointing the CAs. I fear correcting that is too much for my very limited skills and experience with graphics, so I'll withdraw that nomination (or let it go away by itself?) at least for now. Thanks again for your patience.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 23:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
    • You're welcome. :)--Peulle (talk) 07:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Flickr2commons

Photographs were transladas by "Flickr2common" but the license remains the same, I'm changing the author, not to think that the author is another person. So far I have had no problems if I change that.--Harpagornis (talk) 18:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

• @Harpagornis: Yes, I could see from the profiles that the photographer was the same in both Flickr and Commons, but since there are special rules against using Flickr pics in the QI guidelines, I wanted to ask the other users if they know what the rules are. :) --Peulle (talk) 18:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I understand perfectly, thanks --Harpagornis (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Links repariert

Hallo Peulle, ich hatte selbst schon bemerkt, dass ich beim Kopieren einer Kategorie einen Fehler gemacht hatte. Trotzdem danke für den Hinweis. Inzwischen ist der Fehler berichtigt. Schaust Du bitte noch einmal, ob Dir jetzt die Heinkel Kabine und der Porsche 912 gefallen? Herzliche Grüße -- Spurzem (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

• Ja, das soll ich gleich machen. --Peulle (talk) 21:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

File:Mallnitz Tauerntal Tauscherböden 20160807.jpg

Dear Peulle, You have recently checked this file, which I nominated as QI candidate. You have commented it, but neither promoted nor declined. Instead, you have asked for a second opinion. However, it seems to be common practice that nobody else looks at candidates which already have been commented by other reviewers, so that my image is still not QI assessed. So please put your comments only on images where you are sure that you will promote or decline at the end. By the way, I have also nominated this image as featured picture candidate (see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mallnitz Tauerntal Tauscherböden 20160807.jpg), where I currently have 15 pros and no cons - so the quality seems to be sufficient even for FP criteria. Regards, --Uoaei1 (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done Image reviewed. Indeed the comment was made a few days ago, but don't worry if the process takes a few days; the image will remain in the queue until I return a few days later. If you begin to doubt that the first reviewer will make a return and thus miss the image, please take the image to consensual review by changing the tag from "nomination" to "discuss".--Peulle (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	You really made my day with that comment! Cheers! cart-Talk 12:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

QIC question

Thanks for your comments about this image at QIC. While I don't think there's much I can do about the DoF, I took a pass at removing some of the noise from the mid/background. I've uploaded two new versions. This is the denoised version, and this one (the current default/primary) is the same as originally nominated but with some CA removed. I'd appreciate your thoughts regarding whether the denoised version is an improvement. I understand it does not satisfy all of your concerns, regardless. Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  03:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Also pinging Ikan Kekek given his comments on the same image. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  03:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

At first, I preferred the denoised version, but ultimately, I can't decide. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I prefer the denoised version. The problem with noise here is that in combination with the shallow DoF, the noise becomes very visible. Note the face on the black guy in the middle, for instance.--Peulle (talk) 09:51, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

QIC (2)

I never ever requested you to create any category. Neither "Houses in Risør", nor "Residential buildings in Risør", nor "Yellow Volvo EC140BLC excavators in Risør in February 2017 with exposure time 1/500 and F-number f/5.6" nor anything like that... I just requested on QIC that you add an adequate location category to your pictures which has most specific location, in this case it was Category:Risør, as it was the deepest available level and it is probably sufficient given its number of photos. If you want now to create categories of your town at deeper level, do it at least correct way. That is, the next deeper level would be "Buildings in Risør", but then in "Buildings in Norway by city", "Buildings in Aust-Agder", "Risør". I've deleted the allegedly "requested by A.Savin" categories, as I didn't request anything but nominating properly categorized photos according to COM:Image guidelines! Stop this nonsense finally! --A.Savin 17:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

The category "Risør" is not necessarily relevant, as it is not specific enough to the subject at hand. What is shown in the picture is not the city of Risør, but a residential building in Risør. I use the already existing categories on Commons to decide which categories to use: there was already a category called "Residential buildings in Norway by city", to which a new subcategory of "Residential buildings in Risør" could be added. This is more accurate than simply "Risør" for the reason explained above. I am reverting your changes to my files forthwith. Looking at the Guidelines, I find: "Generally files should only be in the most specific category that exists for certain topic. For example files in Category:Looking up the center of the Eiffel Tower should not also be in Category:Paris (see over-categorization below)."--Peulle (talk) 18:14, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

If you want to create Category:Residential buildings in Risør, please put it into Category:Risør. The way you do it is wrong. --A.Savin 05:55, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

So, here the correct way. You apparently want residential buildings category. (I didn't requested it; this is solely what you want.) OK: at first, you create Category:Buildings in Risør. This is to sort into "Buildings in Norway by city" (with the sortkey "Risor" [sic]), "Buildings in Aust-Agder", and "Risør". At second, create the category "Residential buildings in Risør". This is to be sorted into "Residential buildings in Norway by city" (with the sortkey "Risor"), and "Buildings in Risør". There is no other way and I strongly disagree with your claims that the category Risør was in any way irrelevant for some part of photos taken in Risør. Note that I have been working for >10 years with categories on Commons, very much longer than you, so I know very well what I'm doing here! Note also that I didn't request you to create all that residential builsinds etc. categories, other than you claim. As long as there are no such categories, the category Risør is the relevant location category; regardless of what is depicted - an aerial view, a street, a house or a vehicle. Should you continue the same careless way as before, we will move to COM:ANU. (Somehow I get the feeling this is exactly what you want, unfortunately.) --A.Savin 06:21, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

No need to lose one's temper; I don't know which parent categories should be used for each subcategory, but I'm using pre-existing parent categories to create new subcategories, so if there are erroneous parent categories, those have been created by somebody else. Having only the category "Risør" in a photo of something more specific than just a house, or adding the town name to a file that has nothing to do with the place other than having been created there, are simply not accurate enough, that has been my point. If I take a photo of my coffee table inside my house, should that file be categorized with the town name I live in? I think not. If you wish to move the discussion to COM:ANU, feel free. That way, we might get more input from other users, that is what I wanted all along.

As for the correct subcategorization, the Guideline extract above tells you that having the parent category "Risør" in an image in addition to a subcategory of "Risør" is overcategorization. So what is the best solution here? Firstly, since the meta-category "Residential buildings in Norway by city" already exists for several Norwegian cities, I see no reason why "Residential buildings in Risør" should not be a subcategory on Commons. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that this should then have several parent categories? I will attempt to set up a category tree where we end up with my suggested subcategory, at which point the parent category "Risør" will be removed from the files as overcategorization. --Peulle (talk) 08:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Mezquita del Viernes, Yazd, Irán, 2016-09-21, DD 07.jpg

Hi Peulle, I am not 100% sure but I think that it was a narrow street and that there were also vehicles. Believe me, I didn't have freedom to move back. Regards! Poco² 18:11, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Rule of thirds, this the reason for the space to the left, thanks and regards!! Ezarateesteban 21:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought about that, but thought it was mostly done for nature photography. Anyway, good image. --Peulle (talk) 21:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Human heart model.jpg

You have promoted this file.Is there any benefit of all this space?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 09:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Not really, no. But the high resolution makes it a QI anyway, IMO. If the uploader prefers to crop it, that would be fine too (as long as it remains above 2Mpx).--Peulle (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the space is not worth to be existing but the uploader prefers to keep this.It is acceptable that QI contains a large space?Thank you --ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I was of the opinion that the redundant space was not reason enough to decline it. If someone else had objected at the time and taken the image to CR, there might have been other opinions, but nobody did.--Peulle (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Problem in VI

Your image is not displayed in thumb in the contest. Outside of this point, you have to put the images at the end of the list (I corrected). You should add facade to the scope to make it perfect. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Ok for the display has fixed. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Archaeodontosaurus: I noticed that the image did not display correctly but was unable to fix it. Did you do anything or did it correct itself?--Peulle (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It's a mystery. But it works, think to modify the scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Done, per your suggestion. Thank you. :) --Peulle (talk) 15:50, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Crepidula arenata

Llez is absolutely correct. The image shows the surface structure perfectly and alteration would be as he says falsification. This is what it looks like and QI beyond question if there are no other issues. I took a look at one under a Leitz microscope. This has happened before.You really have to know these specimens. It would be very unfair to Llez to decline. His shell photos are as good as you get. See why you thought the focus was wrong. Best regards Notafly (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

I have made a further comment in CR. --Peulle (talk) 03:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Please stop nominating

• «Please stop nominating». — I am sorry; I simply forgot about this nomination. --PereslavlFoto (talk) 09:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@PereslavlFoto: OK, no worries - perhaps you should keep a list of which images you have nominated so you don't lose track. If you're unsure whether you have nominated an image before, each image files has a list of places where it has been used: "File usage on Commons". If it has been declined before, there will be an archive page there.--Peulle (talk) 12:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

McNamara Formula Ford

Hallo Peulle, wie ich gesehen habe, verstehst Du viel von Motorsport und Rennfahrzeugen. Unter anderem schreibst Du zu dem von mir vorgestellten Foto eines McNamara, dass es sowohl ein Formula Ford als auch ein Formula 3 sein könnte. Ein Formula 3 ist es aber mit Sicherheit nicht, wie Du auf dem Bild sehen kannst, das den Wagen von vorn zeigt. An einem Formula 3 müsste der Luftmengenbegrenzer zu erkennen sein, der für diese Fahrzeuge vorgeschrieben war. Was das Baujahr betrifft, hast Du recht, das sich die Form der Autos von Jahr zu Jahr ändern kann. Dem könnte hinzugefügt werden, dass es mitunter nicht nur jährliche Änderungen gibt, sondern möglicherweise sogar von einem Rennen zu anderen. Mit gutem Gewissen kann ich die Bauzeit auf 1969/70 eingrenzen, was Dir aber für die Beurteilung der Qualität des Fotos nicht genügt. Ich habe deshalb die Bewerbung zurückgezogen. Vielleicht sind auch die fotografische Qualität und die Bildgestaltung gemessen an den anderen von Dir bewerteten Aufnahmen so schwach, dass es besser ist, das Foto nicht weiter zur Diskussion zu stellen. Freundliche Grüße -- Spurzem (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

• @Spurzem: Yes, I noticed the withdrawal, but if you like, we can always ask people at CR what they think? And sorry, I forgot to mention the quality: aside from a bit of a tilt (which is easily corrected), the photo quality seems like QI to me. But yes, since Commons is basically an encyclopedia of images, I was hoping you had some more exact information about the car. These museum/exhibit cars in particular could be famous, for instance we can see in the F1 categories that many of the cars have very specific information. I do have a tip if you're interested: when photographing such museum pieces, try to get a shot of the plaques of information. Sometimes they don't have information, though. --Peulle (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Zu Deinem Vorschlag: Ich kann nicht anfangen, die Verkleidung eines Fahrzeugs abzunehmen, um das Typenschild zu suchen. ;-) Manchmal ergibt es sich zwar, dass eine Motorhaube offen ist, und dann fotografiere ich es meistens. Das Baujahr wird allerdings nicht immer genannt. Aber es ist schließlich egal, wenn ich mich auch sehr wundere, wie wichtig die exakte Angabe des Baujahrs für die Qualität des Bildes und auch für die Enzyklopädie sein soll. Ich habe beide Bilder in den Wikipedia-Artikel über McNamara eingefügt und nehme an, dass sie dort auch ohne genaues Baujahr informativ sind. Weitere User zu fragen, wie sie darüber denken, ist die Sache nicht wert. Es gibt zurzeit so viele hervorragende Bilder von Autos bei den QIC, dass es auf dieses eine nicht ankommt. Noch mal freundliche Grüße -- Spurzem (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, no problem. I like the way you did it here and here, getting the relevant info, very helpful to Commons users. Best of luck in the future. :) --Peulle (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Red user names

Surely you must have seen red user names before??? The reason that only the talk page is created is so that the rest of the old users can see that this is a newbie and perhaps take that into consideration when interacting with them. The user page has to be created by someone and that is usually the user themselves when they have begun to learn a bit more about the site and. Do not confuse creating an account with having a user page. On several WPs there is no automatic talk page creation so you can have an account and edit while still having both the user and talk page shining red. --cart-Talk 22:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but the file is the question. Looking at the "source" designation I'm still confused. Who created the file? The artist made the watercolour, but was the digital file also created by a Commons user?--Peulle (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I see that you connected the dots now at QIC. :) According to the previous CR discussion, the artist, photographer and uploader are one and the same. She was invited to join Commons, did so and is now a user. There is also the OTRS ticket to support the issue. A lot of artists photograph their own work and since they many times have their work published in other places before uploading the work here, they also need to sign the OTRS. I think everything is in order now. Hopefully this little fixing may have gained us a new contributor. --cart-Talk 22:57, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Happy holidays! 2018! ;)

			* Happy Holidays 2018! *
			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 19:02, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Noise question

Hallo Peulle,was meinten Sie mit Ihrem Beitrag zu dem Bild "Eichhörchen im Vogelhaus" mit dem Begriff "zuviel Lärm?" Viele Grüße --Fischer.H (talk) 10:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Fischer.H: I am of the opinion that the image in question is far too grainy and noisy for QI status (please see the Guidelines page under "noise"). If you disagree and want more opinions you can change the "Decline" to "Discuss". This will cause the image to go to Consensual Review. Best regards, --Peulle (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Kasper Stadaas

The image uploaded as Skisprinten i Drammen 2018 Kasper Stadaas.jpg is not of Kasper Stadaas, it's Eirik Brandsdal. I have requested a change of the file name, and removed the image from articles of Kasper Stadaas. --Cavernia (talk) 11:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cavernia: According to this list, runner number 16 in the race was indeed Kasper Stadaas, and the runner in the image is wearing shirt no. 16. How do you explain this? --Peulle (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The start numbers in the qualification and the finals are not the same. In the finals the competitors are numbered after their placements in the qualification. --Cavernia (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll take your word for it - thanks. :) --Peulle (talk) 12:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Old camera pic

Thanks for your quick review of QI nominee Nikomat SLR.jpg, even though declined. Can you help me understand where especially you notice artifacts? Photo taken as RAW, exported from Therapee to jpeg with no additional processing, except for color balance. Trying to understand how I can use the camera, Lumix FZ80, to produce good quality images. DonFB (talk) 08:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@DonFB: No problem. Generally, your image didn't succeed in meeting the QI criteria. I can name a couple of things, such as the washed out details on the left or the chromatic noise, but let's look at the artefacts I mentioned. They are especially visible near edges, so if you look at the "Nikomat" letters or the letters around the lens, you can see jagged edges just as described under the "JPEG compression" section of the Guidelines. Details like these become more important with "studio shots" where the photographer should be able to control the light and composition more easily than for instance during an outdoor night shot. If you'd like to take a look at some current Quality Images of camera equpiment, you can find examples on the Quality images/Subject/Objects/Cameras, Optics and Microscopes page. :) Also take note that if you wish to hear more opinions or further reviews when someone declines an image you nominate, you can move it to Consensual Review by changing "Decline" to "Discuss" as described here.--Peulle (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Questions regarding your votes at QI

Hi Peulle, I do not really understand your reasons for declining the two pictures I nominated for QI: File:Michael Lentz auf dem Poesiefestival Berlin 03.jpg and File:Eugen Gomringer auf dem Poesiefestival Berlin 01.jpg. What details are lacking? --Kritzolina (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi there Kritzolina. I was referring to a general loss of detail and sharpness, although I don't know the cause. It could be the poor lighting. If you want more opinions, you can go into the text editor on the QIC page and change the "Decline" to "Discuss". That will send the images to Consensual Review, as outlined here. Regards.--Peulle (talk) 07:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Peulle, thanks for responding so quickly. For me it is not so much about the QI status (Although this is nice of course), but I really do not understand your vote, as I chose those pictures especially for their sharpness and clarity in detail. Could you point out where you are missing something with an example? The way I see it, I got several pictures promoted that had a lot less sharpness - so I would like to learn where exactly to look. --Kritzolina (talk) 07:39, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

OK, I added some notes to the actual images so you can take a look. But I stand by my opinion; these images are definitely not sharp or detailed.--Peulle (talk) 07:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. --Kritzolina (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Gender of Eurasian tree sparrows

Per Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eurasian tree sparrow 2 cropped.jpg, you seemed pretty confident the sparrow was a male. How do you tell? Via the dark color of the feathers around the nape? 🤔 GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC) GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@GerifalteDelSabana:The black part going from the beak to the breast. The females have lighter feathers while the males have more black.--Peulle (talk) 13:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Private contact

Peulle, is there any way I could contact you privately? I have something I would like to ask you about QIC promotion guidelines and people there in general. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 03:57, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Commons is an open platform, so there is a benefit to asking your questions on the talk page so that nothing is hidden. That way, any conflict that arises can be solved by the community managers more easily. What is it you would like to know? Learning by doing is a good approach; I found out how this place works by just being here and getting used to it. :) --Peulle (talk) 10:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Telephonum in Cechia

Quid malum in mea pictura est?

Telephonum in Cechia

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPUTNIK 1 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Ad imaginem, nihil. Ad FP, omnia.--Peulle (

talk) 21:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Revera? Sputnik (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Certo.--Peulle (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

QIC on this slightly overexposed picture?

Any way this picture would ever pass QIC being mildly overexposed? Sad that it was too contrasted. :( GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 07:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

You can always try.--Peulle (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

FP Promotions

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

/FPCBot (talk) 05:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

My first Featured Picture, yay! :) --Peulle (talk) 11:58, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Loft 1750-60 Telemark NFM (3).jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Loft 1750-60 Telemark NFM (3).jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 05:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotions

★ 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 Viking Ship Museum in Oslo..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:57, 24 June 2017 (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:
Gol stave church (rear view).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Ezarateesteban 14:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:23, 27 June 2017 (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:
Ruin of Skeidi church (viewed from south).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2017 (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 Oseberg ship (diagonal view).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support --Ezarateesteban 21:56, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
•  Support 1) For a gerneral overview, this shooting position seems to be the best possible. 2) Out of the images we have that were taken from this position, this seems to be the best one, especially in terms of lighting. --El Grafo (talk) 08:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2017 (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:
Rear view of Bragernes church seen from the north side.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2017 (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 type E2 locomotive of the Krøderen Line (side view)..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:25, 16 July 2017 (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 "Upper Sound" bridge seen from above..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --kaʁstn Dis/Cat 14:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:45, 20 July 2017 (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 Sundland business park seen from the top of the Drammen Spiral..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Charles (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. DeFacto (talk). 08:54, 23 July 2017 (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:
Gulskogen Manor front facade.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2017 (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:
Gulskogen Manor rear view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2017 (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 Norwegian coast guard vessel Nornen (side view)..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:23, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2017 (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:
Norwegian cairn-type daymark..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment - Peulle, you forgot to link the scope to a Commons category. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Actually, I didn't. There is no category for this specific cairn and I don't feel it will be constructive to create one as there are quite a lot of these scattered along the Norwegian coast. I therefore leaned on the criteria: "Think of scope as being akin to a Commons Category, or to the generic title of a Gallery page. If you wish, you can make use of an existing category - or alternatively write your own scope." Apparently, the scope does not have to be a Commons category.--Peulle (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

 Comment - I didn't realize that; thanks for the link. But the problem with not linking to a category is, how do we know where to find other images in this scope to compare to this one? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Perhaps in such instances the title and description become more important? I know that if you search for "Buviksugga" (the name of this thing) you should find the relevant images. After all, if an image doesn't have a good description, it won't satisfy criteria #4 anyway. :D --Peulle (talk) 07:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

 Comment, Why not link it to Category:Daymarks in Norway? We can then at least see if there are comparable images of it there. DeFacto (talk). 08:11, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

In fact, as there are several images of the same thing in that category, I think that to satisfy criteria #6 you should create a specific sub-category for these and link to that. DeFacto (talk). 08:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, the reason I didn't do that is that I don't want the category to be confused with the scope. There are literally thousands of these strewn across the coast, and each of them is not necessarily very important in itself, so I don't think creating subcategories for all of them is a good idea. Despite there not currently being many photos in the category "Daymarks in Norway", I feel that using that as the scope would be too general. The scope should be this specific cairn and the category should be a general one, not one specific to this cairn.--Peulle (talk) 10:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Peulle, with the current narrow scope (just one instance) it is appropriate to have the specific category. On the other hand, if you think they're not individually important, then the scope should be widened (e.g. "Norwegian daymark") and linked to the Category:Daymarks in Norway category. DeFacto (talk). 11:14, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it is not clear to me why this specific cairn would deserve a scope in its own when there are thousands of these around. I other words, how likely is it that anyone from our sister projects would actually search for a picture of this specific cairn? The answer appears to be "pretty unlikely", so a broader scope might be in order. But then again, if the other thousands all look different, it may not make much sense to pick out a single one of them to represent them all. I guess some kinds of objects just don't work very well with our current concept of what a valuable "scope" should look like. --El Grafo (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if criterion #2 is covered, i.e. whether having a VI of this specific daymark cairn is valued, that's the main problem as I see it. I have changed the scope slightly, but as I said there are many of these and there are also different types of daymarks, so using this one to represent them all would be ludicrous. The scope must be specific. The question then is whether it's useful.--Peulle (talk) 15:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Peulle, it sounds then like this image is useful as an illustration of a Norwegian cairn-type daymark, but not necessarily as the specific Buviksugga daymark. So I suggest a scope like this: Norwegian cairn-type daymark would work. The text is not over specific - it covers them all, and the linked category is where they will all be. I'd support that. DeFacto (talk). 07:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Good idea.  Done :) --Peulle (talk) 12:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Peulle, well not quite done; the scope is still overly specific with "The Buviksugga" and "in Risør, Norway" narrowing it to that one specific object still. You need to drop those details and use just "Norwegian cairn-type daymark" as the whole scope, in my opinion. That way it covers all of these cairn-type daymarks, rather than just one of them. DeFacto (talk). 13:30, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

OK. --Peulle (talk) 06:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

•  Support - After all of that, this looks to be clearly the best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:46, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
•  Support, perfect now - useful and best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 08:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

 Comment Thanks to all for discussion and constructive feedback. :) --Peulle (talk) 11:19, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:41, 19 August 2017 (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 Lyngør lighthouse..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support --El Grafo (talk) 11:49, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2017 (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:
Tomb near the Palace of Nestor, view of the vaulted ceiling..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:40, 24 October 2017 (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:
View of the entrance to the tomb near the Palace of Nestor..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support, useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:51, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:40, 24 October 2017 (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 cranes of Drammen harbour illuminated in blue..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:28, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 23:53, 18 November 2017 (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:
Ruins of the Category:Temple of Asclepius in Epidaurus under reconstruction..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 20:33, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:27, 23 November 2017 (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 painting "Father comes home" by L.A. Ring..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope Agree, this is the only other one that could really compete with your selection, and the one you choose is clearly better to me. Although I did have to do some searching so categorization of the others could be better. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment I will improve the categories. Thanks for your review.--Peulle (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment Must connect the scope to the category that contains the image --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done :) --Peulle (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:02, 26 November 2017 (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 Ypsilon pedestrian bridge illuminated in pink, seen from the east..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 09:18, 16 December 2017 (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 Ypsilon pedestrian bridge illuminated in pink, western view..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:11, 17 December 2017 (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 Ypsilon pedestrian bridge illuminated in pink, southern view..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 22:11, 17 December 2017 (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 Norwegian rescue boat Uni Kragerø..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Only one in scope, no? So then it's best and worst in scope. :-) I suppose the scope could be useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

 Comment Best and worst available. You are entirely correct. ;-D --Peulle (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:16, 4 March 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:
Aass brewery seen from the south..
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) 06:01, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
   Comment Sorry, I don't understand what you mean.--Peulle (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment - He means the direction in which you shot (e.g., east, west). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

 Comment Ah - I thought that was obvious, given the geocoding. Should it be in the scope, then? --Peulle (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

 Comment - That's what he wants, yes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done :) --Peulle (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

•  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:12, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:57, 22 March 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:
Austad manor front facade..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:12, 26 March 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:
The Farris bridge, seen from the west..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope Voltmetro 00:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:52, 2 April 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:
Lower Eiker church – western facade.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:58, 21 May 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:
Lower Eiker church – southern side.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:58, 21 May 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:
The Kjæret residence in Risør..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:56, 29 May 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:
The inner port of Risør (town)..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:21, 9 June 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:
Burg Landshut (Bernkastel-Kues) seen from the north..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support High quality, used and useful photo. Voltmetro 13:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Olivier LPB (talk) 13:25, 11 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:
Bernkastel-Kues.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support I agree with your reasoning. Best in scope, Useful and Used. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 18:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:14, 11 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:
Reichsburg Cochem southeastern view..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Sixflashphoto (talk) 01:55, 14 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:
Alopochen aegyptiaca (Egyptian goose) female, front view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Small modification of the scope.
•  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotions

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mystras 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 20:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bybrua winter 2016.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 (and a high f-value), but the crop at the left side is quiet short unfortunately. However good enough to become a Q1photo --Michielverbeek 22:59, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Landfalløyabrua.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. --Ralf Roletschek 20:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Asclepion ruins 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 09:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Epidavros stadium.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) 05:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krøderbanen lokomotiv Type E2 nr. 1122 (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. --A.Savin 01:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Steingarden fra Sommarøy.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) 05:27, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fiskebåter fortøyd.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 I uploaded a new version with lower f-value. Is it better? --Peulle 18:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC) This one looks better, but it is still noisy, a week  Support --Michielverbeek 18:37, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Drammensbrua sett fra Kloptjernveien.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 02:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trær i Løkkebergparken.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 01:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Palamidi wall (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. --A.Savin 01:23, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Asclepion ruins 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 Good quality. --XRay 07:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Palamidi wall (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  Support Good quality. --XRay 07:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Auens vei 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. --MartinThoma 14:51, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Drammen Havn sett fra Holmen.jpeg, 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 09:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Holmen bilmottak.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. --Milseburg 15:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Palamidi arched doorway (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. --A.Savin 03:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mystras old town ruins (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  Support Excellent composition, very good light and use of shadow. A good QI.--Jebulon 20:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ancient Sparta theatre seats.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 had been somewhat sharper, but good quality.--Famberhorst 16:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Korintkanalen (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 19:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mystras old town ruins (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 {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ancient Sparta theatre ruins.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 07:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Korintkanalen (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. Better --Moroder 09:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Volvo DD22 veivals (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 -- Spurzem 14:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Palamidi water drain.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 Week o.k. IMO. --Ermell 07:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)  Comment Thank you for your input. :) --Peulle 12:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sankthansfeiring Holmennokken 2016 (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 02:58, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Padlere på Drammenselva (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 -- Spurzem 14:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC) Comment tending to oppose. Insufficient composition, too many empty space, too much water in foreground, Plesae see note. And please improve the categorization by adding categories (a picture not categorized at the good level cannot be a QI. All mprovable.--Jebulon 15:31, 25 June 2016 (UTC) @Jebulon: Agreed, and  Done. These two categories should be enough, otherwise they will overlap. --Peulle 22:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fjellheim villa.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 Architecture image, good quality.--Marrovi 21:54, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Padlere på Drammenselva (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 {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 12 cm felthaubits.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 21:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Damkrone Nybrufossen 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 OK. --A.Savin 15:14, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Damkrone Nybrufossen 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 Not the sharpest but enough for me. --King of Hearts 05:13, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nybrufossen fra nord.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --W.carter 10:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nybrufossen fra sor 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 The houses and shores of the rapid are a bit dark. Think you can brighten just them without doing anything to that beautiful sky? W.carter 10:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Done You make a good point. I used tone mapping to lighten the shadows by +25. What do you think?--Peulle 16:49, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Much better, that made the pic "come alive". Thanks! Good quality. --W.carter 19:44, 15 September 2016 (UTC) Comment Thanks for your review. :)--Peulle 20:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Graffiti on train in Nafplio (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. --Jkadavoor 04:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Graffiti on train in Nafplio (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. --W.carter 09:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Reklameskilt Lilleborg Luna.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 21:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kiosk med reklameskilt Oslo 1800.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 21:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Graffiti on train in Nafplio (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 This one is a little dark compared to the other two, guess you were shoting against the light here. Think you could up the middle tones and the shadows a bit? As it is now, it's a bit too dark and some detail have been lost. W.carter 09:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC) Done Did a bit of work in Bridge, I think that was a good idea. Thanks for your review. :)--Peulle 06:46, 27 September 2016 (UTC) Much better! Thanks. :) Good quality. --W.carter 08:43, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Four House sparrows in Norway.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 03:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Three House sparrows in Norway.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 03:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! House sparrow in Norway.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 03:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Damkrone Nybrufossen 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. --Johann Jaritz 03:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Damkrone nord Nybrufossen.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 03:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Reklameskilt South State cigarettes.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very little supply pixels, but good enough for me.--Famberhorst 15:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Reklameskilt Plaza cigarettes.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 10:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tuneskipet (detail) 3D-scan (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. --Ralf Roletschek 15:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tuneskipet (detail) 3D-scan (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. --Ralf Roletschek 15:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tuneskipet (detail) 3D-scan (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. --Ralf Roletschek 15:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Osebergskipet akter (detalj).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! Osebergskipets styrebord (detalj).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! Reklameskilt Lilleborg Gronnsepe.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! Reklameskilt Nora Solo.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! Reklameskilt Norsk Tipping.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 October 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stabbur fra Telemark 1797.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. --Zcebeci 08:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kobberkjele.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'd have gone one step further but good enough --Poco a poco 07:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cappelenstua.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 05:42, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kolonialforretning Vognmannsgata 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 {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nedre Eiker Kirke (fra nord).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Quality high enough for a Q1photo --Michielverbeek 20:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nedre Eiker Kirke (fra nordvest).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 02:50, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nedre Eiker Kirke (fra vest).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 19:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nedre Eiker bru (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 21:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nedre Eiker Kirke (fra sør).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 21:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nedre Eiker bru (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 Sharp enough for Q1 under these weather circumstances --Michielverbeek 06:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ypsilon bru november 2016.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 00:52, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Drammenselva fra Landfalløya 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 {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bygninger gamle Papyrus papirfabrikk.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 This is slightly leaning in, could you fix it, please? --Basotxerri 21:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Comment I already ran a perspective correction but may not have been accurate enough. Which way is it leaning?--Peulle 22:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Hi Peulle, I've left a note on your image page. Please observe the extreme walls, they're not straight. --Basotxerri 16:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Done The windows are now aligned so I think that's the straightest I can make it.--Peulle 11:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC) OK now! --Basotxerri 08:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC) CommentThanks for your review. :)--Peulle 19:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Landfalløyabrua november 2016 (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. --Ralf Roletschek 21:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grønland Drammen november 2016.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. --Ralf Roletschek 21:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:36, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Drammenselva ved Mjøndalen (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 {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ingstad-byste.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 10:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Drammen solnedgang december 2016.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very pretty, and I think the unsharpness of the skyline is OK, but please fix the dust spot over the hills near the left margin. -- Ikan Kekek 19:00, 31 December 2016 (UTC) Done Thank you. :) --Peulle 00:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC) Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek 11:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alterskap Kvæfjord kirke 1520 (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. -- Ikan Kekek 23:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alterskap Kvæfjord kirke 1520 (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. -- Ikan Kekek 23:12, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Drammensbrua sett fra Fjordparken 02.17.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 Another nice, artistic photo. -- Ikan Kekek 00:05, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Strandveien og Elveparken 02.17.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 A bit soft at full size, but in this pretty composition, I consider that part of its artistry. I like the light, too. -- Ikan Kekek 00:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fjordparken trebro.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 01:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Drammenselva og Aass bryggeri 02.17.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 enough quality and quite a nice photo. -- Ikan Kekek 00:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Drammensbrua undenfra 02.17.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 Interesting shot of good quality. --Grand-Duc 08:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Transformator i Norge.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 -- George Chernilevsky 06:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Brunt trehus i Risør.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 15:58, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Brunt modulhus i Risør.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 15:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Volvo EC140BLC digger.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) 05:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Risør skjærgård Sandnesfjorden (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 07:48, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:09, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bamble 2vk minnestøtte.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.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Skeidi kirke 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 02:22, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Skeidi kirke 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 Pity the deep shade, but good quality for me.--Famberhorst 04:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Skeidi kirke 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. -- Johann Jaritz 02:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Skeidi kirke 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.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:51, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Skeidi kirke 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. -- Johann Jaritz 02:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Skeidi kirke 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. --Ermell 07:10, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Skeidi kirke portal 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.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Skeidi kirke portal 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, quality high enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 06:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Skeidi kirke portal 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. --Ermell 12:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Skeidi kirke 7.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) 05:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Obelisk Bamble.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. --Milseburg 14:04, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bamble kirke 2017.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. Maybe you could add a material related categorie --Ermell 14:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC) Thank you for your review - I will look into improving the categories later. :) --Peulle 15:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bur Thunehagen 1710.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 --Rbrechko 09:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Havepaviljong fra 1820.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 15:40, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mine på Drammen museum.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.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:34, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Johan Halvorsen statue (2).jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Johan Halvorsen statue (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 Déjà vu... In the other review I wasn't aware that the statue was slanted. Good quality. --Basotxerri 20:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

File:Johan Halvorsen statue (1).jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Johan Halvorsen statue (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, however a statue-related category would be fine. --Basotxerri 19:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC) Found some more info about it. Thanks for your review. :) --Peulle 18:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2vk minnesmerke Drammen (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 17:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2vk minnesmerke Drammen (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. --W.carter 17:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Skeidi kirke 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 Grave stones in the foreground are out of focus, but it is he ruin that matters. Good quality. --W.carter 17:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Triztan Vindtorn skulptur.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. --Basotxerri 18:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mineinskripsjon på Drammen museum.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. --Basotxerri 18:38, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Loftsstue Mellom Rue (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) 05:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Norsk Folkemuseum Utstillingsbygning.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 16:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Skigard NFM.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 16:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stavkirke Gol 1200 NFM (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 --Famberhorst 17:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Good quality, but very dark!

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gol stavkirke tak 1200 NFM.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 one. -- Ikan Kekek 03:01, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gol stavkirke 1200 NFM.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. --Livioandronico2013 23:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ventehall 1883 NFM.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality, but picture could be a bit lighter.--Famberhorst 15:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Leikanger prestebolig 1752 NFM (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 It looks a bit deformed, the horizontal does not look straight (see note) --Michielverbeek 20:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)  Comment You're right - the door deforms when I correct the perspective. It's difficult, so I'll need some time to get it right.--Peulle 22:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)  Comment Yes, I know it's difficult to correct this kind of problem --Michielverbeek 22:44, 1 July 2017 (UTC) I'll keep trying. Thanks for reviewing. :)--Peulle 00:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)@Michielverbeek:  Done I think I've done it! :) It was hard since the house itself isn't straight, but I used some lens correction software and managed to correct the perspective without heavy distortions. Please take a look when you have a moment. --Peulle 22:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC) Now quality is high enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 07:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Øvre Sund Bru sett fra Ypsilon 2017.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 02:20, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sundland (sett fra Spiraltoppen) 2017 (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. --Vengolis 02:45, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sundland (sett fra Spiraltoppen) 2017 (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. --XRay 04:46, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Øvre Sund Bru (sett fra Spiraltoppen).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. --Vengolis 02:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sundland (sett fra Spiraltoppen) 2017 (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 02:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Holmennokken sankthans 2017 (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 -- Spurzem 14:24, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Holmennokken sankthans 2017 (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 -- Spurzem 14:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Holmennokken sankthans 2017 (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 -- Spurzem 14:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ariadne DP-3 CSV.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 -- Spurzem 17:15, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Drammen Bybro sett fra Spiraltoppen 2017.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. PumpkinSky 21:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kran Henrik Drammen havn.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 -- Spurzem 15:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kraner Drammen havn.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 15:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fjellstadveien Risør 2017 (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. --Uoaei1 04:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Flisvika Risør 2017.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. PumpkinSky 02:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kajakker med seil.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. PumpkinSky 02:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Knoppsvane Mindalen 2017 (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. PumpkinSky 02:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fjellstadveien Risør 2017 (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 20:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Buviksugga Risør (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 QI, but, still, can you please fix the slight cw tilt? --Poco a poco 20:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)  Comment I'm not sure there is one; the fjord is optically deceptive. There is a strip of real ocean horizon just to the right of the big cairn, and it looks pretty horizontal to me, what do you think?--Peulle 01:57, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Buviksugga Risør (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. PumpkinSky 00:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Buviksugga Risør (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, unfortunate lighting. --Basotxerri 09:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Buvika Risør 2017.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. --Basotxerri 09:27, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Risør østfra 2017 (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. --Livioandronico2013 21:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Risør sørfra 2017 (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 15:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mindalen 2017.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 16:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Knoppsvane Mindalen 2017 (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 15:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sørfjorden ved Mindalen 2017.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. --Vengolis 02:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tangen og Flisvika Risør 2017.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. --Vengolis 02:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Risør østfra 2017 (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 16:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stake ved Buviksugga Risør.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. --Basotxerri 15:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stangholmen 2017 (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. --Basotxerri 15:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stangholmen fyr sørfra 2017.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 16:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Risør sørfra 2017 (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. --Poco a poco 18:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Buviksugga Risør (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 --Halavar 14:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gulskogen gård skrå juli 2017.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 15:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gulskogen gård bakside skrå juli 2017 (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 o.k. --Ermell 07:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gulskogen gård bakside skrå juli 2017 (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 Reminds me of my first holiday in Norway with 3 weeks of rain --Ermell 07:55, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Drammen Bybro juli 2017.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 16:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Knoppsvane Mindalen 2017 (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 Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 04:58, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! KV Nornen i Risør august 2017 (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 02:07, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! KV Nornen i Risør august 2017 (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 02:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lyngør august 2017 (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. --Vengolis 02:01, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Buviksugga august 2017.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. --Livioandronico2013 18:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kanonjolla Øster Riisøer III.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) 05:13, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lyngør fyr august 2017 (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. --Vengolis 00:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lyngør fyr august 2017 (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. --Vengolis 01:08, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lyngør fyr august 2017 (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. --PtrQs 00:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lyngør august 2017 (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. --Vengolis 01:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lyngør fyr august 2017 (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. --Vengolis 01:07, 14 August 2017 (UTC) @Peulle: In spite of the fact, that someone was rather triggerhappy in promoting images - even if they were in the process of review: could you be so kind and make this image a real QI by fixing that CW-tilt? --PtrQs 21:33, 14 August 2017 (UTC) Absolutely.  Done and thanks for reviewing.--Peulle 22:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Minnesmerke Lyngørslaget (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. --XRay 06:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Redningsskøyter utenfor Risør august 2017 (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. --Jacek Halicki 06:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Redningsskøyter utenfor Risør august 2017 (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 07:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Risør fra Risørflekken august 2017 (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. --Basotxerri 07:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Minnesmerke Lyngørslaget (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  Comment IMO it is tilted CW. --XRay 07:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)  Comment I don't think so. The base of the column is straight. For  Info the actual column is not 100 % straight IRL.--Peulle 09:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)  Support Thanks for your information. --XRay 11:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Minnesmerke Lyngørslaget (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 07:34, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! KV Nornen i Risør august 2017 (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  Support OK for me. --C messier 11:40, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Risør fra Risørflekken august 2017 (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 GQ--Nikhilb239 02:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Audi A3 SportBack 2017 (front).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. I suggested another category. --Ermell 07:32, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Audi A3 SportBack 2017 (rear).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 --Llez 11:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Frydendal kirke natt 2017 (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  Comment Too dark and too many shadows. Fixable? --C messier 11:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC) Comment Hmmm... well, I do have the RAW file - what do you suggest? Brightening shadows a bit? I'd prefer not to mess with the exposure setting.--Peulle 20:58, 18 August 2017 (UTC)  Comment Maybe brightening the shadows would help (or crop the photo around the church for a siluette photo). I would go for the first. --C messier 13:43, 19 August 2017 (UTC) Done Shadows brightened to the maximum. Keeping in mind that this is a night photo, I don't think any more brightening should be applied. There's a reason we can't see the sky properly: it was completely dark.--Peulle 11:51, 22 August 2017 (UTC)  Comment OK with the shadows (it looks like a late blue hour shot). Some more NR in the sky and it is a QI for me. --C messier 08:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC) Done Slight NR applied.--Peulle 06:35, 30 August 2017 (UTC)  Support OK for me. --C messier 09:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Akropolis fra Pnyx 2017 (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 03:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Akropolis fra Pnyx 2017 (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  Support--Jebulon 22:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Propylaea south-east view in 2017 (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. --Milseburg 15:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

File:Acropolis museum seen from Acropolis 2017.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Acropolis museum seen from Acropolis 2017.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. --Basotxerri 15:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Temple of Olympian Zeus 2017 (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 Perhaps could have been a bit sharper above. but good quality for me.--Famberhorst 15:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Temple of Olympian Zeus 2017 (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. --Basotxerri 15:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Temple of Olympian Zeus 2017 (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  Support Nice.--Jebulon 09:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Odeion of Herodes Atticus (east view) in 2017.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good Quality but I would think there would be more then one category --- Sixflashphoto 06:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pnyx seen from Acropolis in 2017 (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 for me, but if you can, please try to reduce the haze a bit. --Basotxerri 15:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Theatre of Dionysus 2017.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 12:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Parthenon east wall reconstruction (detail).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 Photo could have been a bit darker, but good enough for me ..--Famberhorst 17:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Caryatids replicas at the Erectheum (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 The bottom crop is not ideal, but ok overall --Poco a poco 16:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Caryatids replicas at the Erectheum (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 15:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Erechteum south view in 2017.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 15:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Erechteum south-west view in 2017 (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. --Jacek Halicki 15:39, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Erechteum south-east view in 2017 (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 That´s it. --Ermell 16:36, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Erechteum south-east view in 2017 (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 Could be a bit darker but still o.k. --Ermell 16:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Erechteum south-west view in 2017 (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) 05:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ancient Messene wall (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.--Agnes Monkelbaan 17:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ancient Messene (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. --Ermell 10:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stadium columns Ancient Messene (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 18:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Columns in Ancient Messene (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. --Basotxerri 15:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Amphitheatre Ancient Messene (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 --Halavar 19:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Amphitheatre Ancient Messene (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. --Cayambe 14:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ancient Messene (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 --QICbot (talk)  Comment Whoever promoted this, please make a correct signature so we can archive and promote this. --W.carter 19:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Amphitheatre Ancient Messene (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 Quality high enough for Q1 --Michielverbeek 07:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Amphitheatre Ancient Messene (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 07:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Amphitheatre Ancient Messene (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 07:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Palace of Nestor fountain.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. Should be centered and DoF could be better. --XRay 12:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Palace of Nestor oil jars (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 -- Sixflashphoto 00:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Palace of Nestor mausoleum (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 17:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Navarino Bay (Palace of Nestor view) (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  Comment IMO tilted CW (horizon), haze could be reduced. --XRay 12:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)  Done Tilt corrected.--Peulle 14:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)  Support OK now. Thank you. --XRay 16:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ancient Sparta theatre overview (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 06:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ancient Sparta theatre overview (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. --Berthold Werner 08:02, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Palace of Nestor mausoleum (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. --Cayambe 19:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Asclepeion Epidaurus (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 Maybe I would have cropped it a bit tighter, but that's personal like. Overall good sharpness and reasonably bright in the shadows with good colors and contrast levels. --Granada 15:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Epidaurus stadium.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. --Basotxerri 18:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Palace of Nestor ruins (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. --Poco a poco 17:54, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Palace of Nestor throne base (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 OK. --C messier 14:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Navarino Bay (Palace of Nestor view) (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  Support OK for me. --C messier 14:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Athena Statuette (NAMA 274) 2017.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. --Aeou 04:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Funerary crown (NAMA 754) 2017 (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 -- Sixflashphoto 00:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

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

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ancient Sparta ruins (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. --Dirtsc 10:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ancient Sparta ruins (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 for me. --Basotxerri 20:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bysykkel Drammen.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 16:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gatearbeid i Drammen (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. --Aeou 18:28, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Recycling bins Drammen.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Sharp enough for Q1, but it needs a serious bottom crop and a small top crop --Michielverbeek 21:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC) Done--Peulle 15:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC) Like this you emphasize the main objects much better --Michielverbeek 22:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Roadworks fence (Norway).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. --Basotxerri 18:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Funerary crown (NAMA 754) 2017 (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  Support OK. --C messier 20:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Øvre Stoppen (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. PumpkinSky 00:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Øvre Stoppen (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 {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Drammensfjorden Lier oktober 2017.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 13:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Drammen havn blue cranes (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 Nice picture but hard to judge for me. Because I make other kinds of pictures. For me good quality.--Famberhorst 08:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Øvre Stoppen (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. Minor perspective issues. --XRay 05:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Drammen havn blue crane (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. --Ralf Roletschek 09:28, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Audi A3 SportBack 2017 Drammensfjorden (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. --Ralf Roletschek 09:29, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Asclepeion Epidaurus (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 The photo is on the dark side. But the quality is good for me.--Famberhorst 18:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Far kommer hjem LA Ring (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. It is the of the three IMO --Villy Fink Isaksen 18:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Far kommer hjem LA Ring (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 19:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Audi A3 SportBack 2017 Drammensfjorden (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 {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Far kommer hjem LA Ring (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. Probably the best of the four photos. --Villy Fink Isaksen 15:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ypsilon bru rosa (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.--Famberhorst 18:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ypsilon bru rosa (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. --Basotxerri 18:56, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ypsilon bru rosa (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 OK for me. --Basotxerri 21:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Regalskeppet Vasa baug babord (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 22:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Regalskeppet Vasa baug babord (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 19:02, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Drammen børs vinter 2018.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 18:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Elveparken vinter 2018.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 04:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Holmenbrua jernbanebro vinter 2018 (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 --Halavar 14:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aass bryggeri vinter 2018 (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 04:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aass bryggeri vinter 2018 (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 04:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Holmenbrua jernbanebro vinter 2018 (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. --Basotxerri 18:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aass bryggeri vinter 2018 (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. --Basotxerri 18:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aass bryggeri vinter 2018 (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 Perhaps something could have been sharper. But for me good quality.--Famberhorst 18:10, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Knoppsvane Risør havn 2018 (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. --Poco a poco 20:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Knoppsvane Risør havn 2018 (10).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 15:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! RS Inge Steensland i Risør februar 2018.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 22:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! 2vk minnesmerke Risør (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 focus to the memorial. However I don't think the snow does not anything to the composition because the house and the fence are also white --Michielverbeek 21:58, 1 March 2018 (UTC  Comment I agree and I will shoot more photos of this in the summer, when the colours are more lively. Thanks for your review. :) --Peulle 14:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC))

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! RS Uni Kragerø i Risør februar 2018.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 enough for QI in my eyes although the light is a bit flat. --Milseburg 19:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austad gård vest mars 2018.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 01:39, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Drammensbrua sett fra Drafnkollen mars 2018 (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. --Bgag 03:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Drammensbrua sett fra Drafnkollen mars 2018 (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. --Bgag 03:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aass bryggeri mars 2018 (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 - Sharp enough for QI, IMO, and a pretty picture. -- Ikan Kekek 06:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aass bryggeri mars 2018 (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  Support - Picturesque, good enough quality (I like the softness in this case). -- Ikan Kekek 06:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Skisprinten i Drammen 2018 Emil Iversen (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. --Poco a poco 15:05, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Skisprinten i Drammen 2018 Emil Iversen (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. A bit too dark IMO --Ermell 13:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Skisprinten i Drammen 2018 Emil Iversen (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. --Ermell 13:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austad gård mars 2018 (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 --Halavar 16:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austad gård mars 2018 (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 --Halavar 16:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Farrisbrua mars 2018 (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 02:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Farrisbrua mars 2018 (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. -- Johann Jaritz 02:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Farrisbrua mars 2018 (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. -- Johann Jaritz 02:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Farrisbrua mars 2018 (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. --Isiwal 07:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Solberg kapell mai 2018.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! Tangen i Risør mars 2018 (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 {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nedre Eiker kirke og Solberg kapell mai 2018 nordfra (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}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nedre Eiker kirke mai 2018 nordfra (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. --Jacek Halicki 11:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nedre Eiker kirke og kapell mai 2018 nordfra (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. --Cayambe 20:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nedre Eiker kirke mai 2018 sørfra (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. It would be nice to have the location in the file description --Moroder 04:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)  Info It's already there - Lower Eiker.--Peulle 06:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nedre Eiker kirke mai 2018 inngang.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! 2vk minnesmerke Nedre Eiker.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, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fuglereir i stolpe.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. --Basotxerri 15:50, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nedre Eiker kirke mai 2018 sørfra (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) 05:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Norsk flagg (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 {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Norsk flagg (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, Tournasol7 14:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Norsk flagg (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 {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bjørk i Drammenselva.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) 05:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Knoppsvane i Drammenselva mars 2018 (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. --Moroder 19:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

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

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Siem Diamond.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 21:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jerngelender i Risør (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. --Jacek Halicki 21:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Branntårnet i Risør.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! Jernbalkong i Risør (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 {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jernbenk i Risør.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! Jernport i Risør (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 {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vannkran av jern.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 --Llez 14:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kjæret boligeiendom.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! 2vk minnesmerke Risør (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 {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! A535 Valkyrien i Risør.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. --Milseburg 16:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Siem Pearl.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! Jerngelender i Risør (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) 05:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jerngelender i Risør (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 {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jernport i Risør (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}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jernbenker i Risør.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! Vinduornament av jern.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! Jernbalkong i Risør (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) 08:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Audi A3 SportBack 2017 (side).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 see slight CAs at the wheels but good quality and beautiful background -- Spurzem 12:33, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tourist boat Konigstein Mosel.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. --Podzemnik 00:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vineyard by the Mosel jun 2018 (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 {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vineyards by the Mosel jun 2018 (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.--Famberhorst 05:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vineyard by the Mosel jun 2018 (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}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vineyards by the Mosel jun 2018 (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  Support Good quality. --Basotxerri 16:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vineyards by the Mosel jun 2018 (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  Support OK for me but a bit hazy. --Basotxerri 16:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Burg Landshut jun 2018 (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}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kues jun 2018.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! Bernkastel jun 2018.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! Dam and locks Neef jun 2018.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 12:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Burg Cochem jun 2018.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. ... Da wären wir uns ja fast begegnet. ;-) --XRay 12:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Burg Landshut towers jun 2018.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. --Podzemnik 00:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Barge on Mosel by Kues (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. --Podzemnik 00:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Burg Landshut wall jun 2018 (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. --Podzemnik 00:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Burg Landshut wall jun 2018 (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  Support Good quality. It'd be an interesting photo at night, I see there is a light on the ground --Podzemnik 00:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Burg Landshut jun 2018 (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 {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Burg Landshut jun 2018 (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 {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wine grapes Mosel 2018 (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  Support Good quality. --XRay 07:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vineyards Neef jun 2018.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 07:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mute swan Mosel back view.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 -- Sixflashphoto 00:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mute swan drinking (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 --Llez 06:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mute swan foraging grass (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. --GT1976 01:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mute swan foraging grass (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. --GT1976 01:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wine grapes Mosel 2018 (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. Nice composition --Moroder 14:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hochmoselbrucke unter jun 2018 (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) 05:25, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Egyptian Goose Urzig Mosel jun 2018 (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, I especially like this one. --GerifalteDelSabana 03:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Egyptian Goose Urzig Mosel jun 2018 (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. --GerifalteDelSabana 03:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Egyptian Goose Urzig Mosel jun 2018 (13).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. --GerifalteDelSabana 02:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Egyptian Goose Urzig Mosel jun 2018 (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 A few artifacts here and there when pixel-peeping, but still Good Quality. GerifalteDelSabana 02:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mute swan foraging grass (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  Support Good quality. --GerifalteDelSabana 02:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! River locks door Neef jun 2018.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) 05:27, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vineyards Urzig jun 2018 (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 {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vineyards Polich jun 2018 (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 {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vineyards Polich jun 2018 (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) 05:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Fiskebåt Lene Fisker.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 -- Spurzem 18:35, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Risør Villvin juli 2018 (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. --Isiwal 09:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Oksøy fyr juni 2018 (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 {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Risør Villvin juli 2018 (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) 05:33, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Risør fra tårnet juli 2018 (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  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 15:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Oksøy fyr juni 2018 (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, Tournasol7 13:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pullert Risør juli 2018.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. --Martin Falbisoner 21:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MF «Øisang» juli 2018 (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. --GPSLeo 21:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MF «Øisang» juli 2018 (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. --GPSLeo 21:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MF «Øisang» juli 2018 (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  Weak supportNot very sharp, but it is OK. --GPSLeo 21:32, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Skilt Frelsesarmeen.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. --Martin Falbisoner 21:42, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hirtshals Lighthouse.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! Risør fra tårnet juli 2018 (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 {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Burg Landshut jun 2018 (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 {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hirtshals port buildings jun 2018.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) 05:28, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Oksøy fyr juni 2018 (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 Photo should have had some contrast. But good enough for me.--Agnes Monkelbaan 16:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Risør Villvin juli 2018 (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. --Moroder 06:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)