User:Berthold Werner/ValuedImages

Deutschland

★ 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:
Porta Nigra.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Question Is there any reason why this image is more valuable for illustrating the subject than, say, Image:Trier, Porta Nigra cityside.jpg? I'm not trying to be facetious--I'm simply wondering if there's a particular reason why an image of the north side is more valuable than one of the south. --jonny-mt 13:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • First of all I didn't think to select a own valued image for each side. Perhaps you're right. But the north side is the side the romans build to impress the Germanic tribes so it's a kind of "main side" and more impressing. Most pictures in books and postcards show the north side. But as a "UNESCO World Heritage Site" the Porta Nigra may got a valued image for each side. --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Have you considered doing a series, then? I like this shot and agree that it's valuable, but since I'm having a hard time gauging its value relative to other similar pictures on Commons I'm  Neutral for the time being. I'd certainly be willing to support a series showing various angles of this World Heritage Site, though. --jonny-mt 15:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I agree with the nominator that this side of the structure is the most relevant, and I find the scope relevant as a stand-alone image. There are other photos on Commons taken from this side, but I think the lightning conditions on this candidate is better than on competing images and the crop is good. Other criteria check out for me too, so its a support from my side. Concerning a set nomination, I have my reservations unless it is taken as a series on the same day, at the same distance, such that it constitutes a coherent set. Difficult however, as the lightning conditions will never be good at all sides at the same time of day. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 1 neutral

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2008 (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:
Trier cathedral (exterior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support : best in scope. --JLPC (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2013 (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:
Kurfürstliches Palais in Trier.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Info This is the most interresting side of the building and the most photographed too. --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment It is a good and illustrative image of the subject. So is Image:Trier Kurfuerstliches Palais BW 2.JPG which includes the garden, but I tend to agree that the nominated image is the best suited for online display. I cannot support it (yet) though as the categorization to Category:Trier is too unspecific. Choose a suitable subcategory to this one or create your own. Geo OK. I have not yet assessed its relevance for WMF projects, but I will be happy to continue the review once the categorization is improved. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
  •  InfoThank you for that hint. Category is now "Category:Kurfürstliches Palais". --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
    •  Support The scope is relevant for WMF projects, and I also think this particular image is slightly better at representing the subject, altough there are close competitor in the category, such as Image:Kurfürstliches Palais 01.jpg. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 14:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Foroa (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2008 (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:
Dreikönigenhaus in Trier.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 InfoThe Dreikönigenhaus(House of the Three Wise Men) is a mediaeval building from 1230 in Trier

•  Support Looks ok to me. --Eusebius (talk) 13:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 09:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

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

review

 Support The best of the best. Albertus teolog (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

•  Support OK for me --Eusebius (talk) 05:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 12:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Gorgeous image, very well documented (nice work of translation). I've inserted it in en:Christoph Thomas Scheffler (Berthold, I hope you agree, this article was illustrated by one of your images before :-). Note that the image depicts only a part of the vault (see File:Sankt Paulin BW 6.JPG by comparison), but as this vault is known because of the frescoes, this image can be said the most valuable within the scope, I guess. The vault would also deserve its own sub-category in Category:St. Paulin (Trier). --Myrabella (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Request a source for Resurrection and ascension of the martyrs? --Ikar.us (talk) 18:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • A booklet that one can buy at the church: "St. Paulin in Trier", Pfarramt St. Paulin Trier 1976 (Pfarramt is priest's office) --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It's a surprising theology. In mainline christianity, nobody but Jesus Christ ascended by his own will. Some others, like Enoch or Virgin Mary, were passively assumpted into Heaven. Martyrs simply died when they were killed, that's what makes them martyrs. --Ikar.us (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Ich zitiere mal auf deutsch aus dem genannten Heft über das zentrale Bild: "Wohl sind es zunächst die trierischen Märtyrer, die in einem Sieges- und Auferstehungszug gen Himmel wallen, aber der inhaltliche Rahmen ist doch viel weiter gespannt: Es ist eine Apokalyptische Vision..." und weiter hinten: "Aus der Erde unter ihr erheben sich die Toten. Durch das zentral stehende Pauliner Kreuz und die vier dazugehörenden Gerichtssteine wird der Bezug zur trierischen Märtyrerauferstehung hergestellt." Sorry my english is not good enough to give a translation of this. I read from this it's a view to the future with the resurrection and ascension. (?) --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
      •  Comment Thanks to Google rough translation, I may suggest to add in the note that it is an apocalyptic vision. May be is also a Baroque extrapolation :-). My further remark is more prosaic. Commons is a repository for all Wikimedia projects. However I draw your attention to the fact that notes put on the file only and not in the textual description don't appear when the image is seen through Wikipedia. An example with fr:Massacre de la légion thébaine : clicking on the image of the article gives this => users can only read verses in various languages in the description; they are not given a clue that the frescoes are about the Theban Legion massacre in Trier indeed. It is the reason why I would suggest to add the file notes content in the plain text description too. --Myrabella (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
      • OK, I guessed that they mixed it up with the resurrection of the dead at the end of time. Still wonder if we are going to ascend to Heaven, and not stay on the New Earth.,. But baroque catholicism and illustrations aren't rigid in theological considerations.  Support --Ikar.us (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment Hello everybody. I agree with the "apocalyptical vision". This is a baroque point of view, only with souls, not with real bodies. For french speaking readers, i've found this this about the german legend, absolutely unknown in France, I think. I've tried to actualize the french fr:Massacre de la légion thébaine with some translated explanations from the German wikipedia, and I insertedin it a view of Sankt Paulinus Church, and of this wonderful vault, by BW. I don't know why notes on the file does not appear. Did I made an error ? I apologize a lot if it is. I explained too on BW Discussion page, that they are many Saint Paulin, isn't it, Myrabella ? Breaking new : This image is now a Featured Picture ! Congratulations ! --Jebulon (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for this interesting source and for your documentary work. About the file notes, it's a general observation: any note on any Commons file is lost when the image is seen through Wikipedia :-(( --Myrabella (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ikar.us (talk) 22:52, 29 March 2010 (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:
Schloss Monaise.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support all criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

•  Oppose as not yet eligible for VI status. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it cannot at present become a valued image since it currently fails valued image criterion 4 (is not fully described on the image page). I have not reviewed the nomination against all the criteria, but if you are able to fix this issue and would like me to re-evaluate the image please leave me a message on my talk page. Cf. Nomination just before this one, where much more information is given on the image page. พ.s. 03:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

 Comment Added an extensive ;-) description in german. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

This could have been OK were it not a copyright infringement of this! พ.s. 07:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I took it from here: de:Liste der Kulturdenkmäler in Trier-Euren, that should been checked against copyright violation. --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

•  Support Best in the category. Yann (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Comment Text is still a copyvio. พ.s. 22:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
•  Support best in scope. Text is no copy-vio. Objective descriptions have no copyright because of no available threshold of originality. Wetenschatje: please don't make such imputation without sufficient acknowledgment. But I recommend to add an English description. --Wladyslaw (talk) 09:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
•  CommentEnglish description added. Not so extensive as the german one. --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:19, 23 September 2011 (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:
Frankenturm (Trier).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:09, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations!
The set of images you nominated for valued image set was reviewed and has now been promoted to the Valued image set: Imperial Roman Baths (Trier).

It is considered to be the most valued set of images on Commons within the scope:
Imperial Roman Baths (Trier).
If you would like to nominate another image set, please do so at Valued images candidates.

★ 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:
Steipe.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Very neat and interesting presentation. All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:46, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 15:38, 25 January 2012 (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:
Konstantinbasilika (Trier).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope. A gallery would be welcome. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

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

review

•  Oppose - wrong scope. this is definitely not an exterior. --Rastaman3000 (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC) - Scope was fixed. Next time please notify me. --Rastaman3000 (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
• ;-) --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Good scope. Good photography. Albertus teolog (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Scope OK now. Best match for this scope. Yann (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support VI rules for churches scopes are really harsh:"Not any church is worth a Valued Image scope. Cathedral scopes are OK, but for other churches there should be a good reason, like being a pilgrimage place, being really famous, being architecturally exceptional. This neighbourhood church seems almost unknown. It doesn't appear among the churches to be seen in Trier according to the official web site of the city (see [1]). However, a church issued from a secular building is rather inusual (secularized churches are more frequent); and a church built from a former riding arena is really a rare topic! That may justify a scope, that the nominated image illustrates very well. --Myrabella (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Request A request nevertheless: a description in another language(s) is needed to explain more widely the specificity of this church. --Myrabella (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• I tried to make a translation. --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Thank you. I took the liberty of completing the category in the same way. Note: I hope there is no issue with copyrights for these recent works of art (stained glass, sculptures)... --Myrabella (talk) 08:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • They would be de minimis anyway. Yann (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2009 (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:
Category:St. Ambrosius (Trier), exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Fulfills all requirements IMO. Image description is quite detailed and informative, but only given in German (should be translated if possible). -- JovanCormac 15:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose VI rules for churches scopes are really harsh:"Not any church is worth a Valued Image scope. Cathedral scopes are OK, but for other churches there should be a good reason, like being a pilgrimage place (is it?), being really famous (it doesn't seem to be the case, a quick search on :de:w with trier+ambrosius doesn't give anything in plain text about this church), being architecturally exceptional (a quick search with Thoma+architekt in :de:w doesnt't return any relevant link to the "F. Thoma" quoted in the image description)." So fails criterion 2 IMO, not famous enough to be a "suitably generic scope". --Myrabella (talk) 09:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment The point to nominate is, it's a former riding hall, wich would be extremly rare --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
  • * Comment If the purpose is to show a church issued from a former riding arena, one of your inside views could be a better illustration, IMO. This one, for exemple, with its impressive beam structure—compare with that one of a riding arena still in activity: some similarities! --Myrabella (talk) 11:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Support If the interior is worth its own scope, why not the exterior? Yann (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Because what makes this church "being architecturally exceptional", as VI rules say, is to have been built from a former riding arena. This special characteristic is evident in the inside view (which thus deserves a scope), but absolutely not in the outside one, IMO. From outside, this neigbourhood church seems rather ordinary (and VI rules insist: "Not any church is worth a Valued Image scope. Cathedral scopes are OK", and so on. Personally, I find this rule too severe, but that's another debate.) --Myrabella (talk) 11:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose As Myrabella. Lycaon (talk) 00:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 2 oppose =>
undecided. Yann (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment New try after more than 2 years. --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Support All crieteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Did the rules change since two years ago ? Not already. I'm sorry, but I agree with Myrabella, for now. The exterior view of this building does not deserve a scope IMO. We have to change the rules before, sorry.--Jebulon (talk) 14:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose Per Myrabella. cmadler (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment It is a heritage monument of Rhineland-Palatinate --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
  •  Question In many areas there are different levels of lists. For example, in the United States, a structure listed on the en:National Register of Historic Places will probably merit its own scope, but something listed by a state (e.g. en:List of Michigan State Historic Sites) or municipality might not. Likewise in the United Kingdom there are different grades (see en:Listed building). At what level or to what grade/category is this church recognized? Thanks, cmadler (talk) 18:41, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Sorry, if the above question is answered in the PDF linked below I can't tell; my limited knowledge of German is not up to the task. My question about the level/degree/category of listing still stands. cmadler (talk) 13:53, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I change my vote due to Berthold Werner's explanation. The fact it is an official heritage monument is a good reason for a scope. Best in scope indeed.--Jebulon (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Oppose as before.พ.s. 10:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Request Please add this new information in the file description. NB: There is a dead link in the German description; I guess it could be updated by this link : http://denkmallisten.gdke-rlp.de/Trier.pdf, but please check. --Myrabella (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Done --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support There are really many cultural heritage monuments in Trier, and I still find the interior the most remarkable part of that church, but nevertheless I change my vote from oppose to support because 1) that image could have competed in WikiLove Monuments 2011 (if it had been taken in sept. 2011) 2) It is of value to WMF projects (used in de:WP for example) ") I am a member of Commons:Projet Monuments Historiques français and then interested in the largest possible coverage of heritage monuments in Commons and WP 4) being consistent with my own proposition of rewritten rule in this recent thread about scopes 4) hearing Slaunger's words that his root-idea of VI project wasn't to be very selective and that there can be very many VIs. By the way, maybe could we consider renominating this 2008 test VIC... --Myrabella (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC) P.S. - Last but not least: it is the best available image in the scope! --Myrabella (talk) 23:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 2 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:42, 10 February 2012 (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:
Turm Luxemburg (Trier).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support : best in scope. --JLPC (talk) 11:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:36, 19 October 2012 (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:
Villa Weißhaus (Trier).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope --VT98Fan (talk) 19:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2013 (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:
Drachenhaus (Trier), exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Please add English description (might be shorter than in existed German language). Halavar (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

•  Done --Berthold Werner (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
  •  Best in Scope now. --JLPC (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Halavar (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2013 (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:
Karl-Marx-Haus, facade.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Exterior seems too vague, facade would be better

•  Done --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

 Support --Wayne77 (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

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

review

•  Best in Scope -- Although an English description would be nice. -- Mathieu MD (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:36, 27 May 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:
Town hall of Bernkastel-Kues, Germany.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 InfoTown hall of Bernkastel-Kues in Germany, build in 1608

•  Comment Could you add an english description in the image file. Is it actually the present time townhall or the old Rathaus building changed into a restaurant ? Could you precise, please, because enlargement shows only a restaurant. --B.navez (talk) 09:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Done. --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Required improvements done. VI criteria completed. --B.navez (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 21:11, 8 September 2008 (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:
Bamberg Cathedral.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Foroa (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2008 (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:
Bamberg Cathedral (interior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me. For coherency with already promoted VIs, should we put "interior" between parentheses? --Eusebius (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
• Yes --Berthold Werner (talk) 19:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2008 (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 nave of St. Michael church, Bamberg.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment - I will support if the scope is changed to "The nave of St. Michael church, Bamberg" -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comprehensible to me. Done. --Berthold Werner (talk) 20:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Neutral The new scope suggests that there may be VIs for "the transept of St. Michael church, Bamberg", "the choir of St. Michael church, Bamberg", "the portal of St. Michael church, Bamberg", "the third pillar of the northern aisle of St. Michael church, Bamberg"... I'm quite uncomfortable with that. I'd rather take "St. Michael church, Bamberg" as a scope (the monastery was definitely too broad a scope), but I won't oppose this one. I like the picture and I've been uncomfortable with the scope issue since its nomination, I couldn't make my mind about it. --Eusebius (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Perhaps it would be necessary to decide for each comparable nomination about the scope. Imho beside general views VIs should only be appointed for outstandig parts of buildings. (I will nominate another (I think extraordinary) view from inside this church). Alvesgaspar is right, what you see is the nave, nothing more. --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment I agree with the nominator and Alves that having such a very specific scope is acceptable if the detail is outstanding or particularly interesting. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 1 neutral

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2008 (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 holy grave chapel of St. Michael church, Bamberg.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support I agree with the scope, its value, the picture and everything. Surprise! :-) --Eusebius (talk) 19:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

review

•  Comment - You forgot to add the geolocation --Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 16:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• OK --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
•  Best in Scope --The High Fin Sperm Whale 22:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Question Is this other image in a different and more specific scope? Flávio "Maddox" ^go! 14:58, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:20, 11 November 2010 (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:
Plönlein in Rothenburg ob der Tauber.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 InfoThe Plönlein is one of the most photographed and painted places in Germany.

•  Support There is a lot of competition, and it may be somewhat a matter of personal taste which one best illustrates the scope. I tend to agree the nominated image is the best, and thank you for not having to ask you to add a heading, as you have done that already. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:54, 30 September 2008 (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:
Town hall Rothenburg ob der Tauber.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Better than the other one. Mr. Mario (talk) 14:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose Slightly prefer the other one. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Better light balance --B.navez (talk) 02:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 10:29, 6 October 2008 (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:
Ebrach Abbey church (interior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Could you please geotag? Also, all this nauseating rococo stuff should be burnt to the ground and rebuilt as a good old-fashion gothic church. Apart from that, no problem. --Eusebius (talk) 23:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Coordinates will be added by the next run of User:DschwenBot --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Done. --Eusebius (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Good, match the scope. Yann (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2009 (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:
Rödelseer Tor.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support As a photograph, it is the best in its category. As a notable subject, it looks like some. --MrPanyGoff 09:09, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:29, 3 February 2011 (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:
Kongresshalle Berlin.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment The building is still known as "Kongresshalle" in germany although it's name is "Haus der Kulturen der Welt" ("House of the Cultures of the World") since 1989.

•  Support best in scope--FALCOM (talk) 10:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 08:42, 12 August 2011 (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:
Französischer Dom (Berlin), exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support all criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2011 (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:
Riquethaus.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support All criteria met; easily best in scope. cmadler (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:40, 23 September 2012 (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:
Michaeliskirche (Zeitz), exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:44, 27 September 2012 (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:
Nikolaikirche (Leipzig), exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Best in scope and all criteria met. I think this point of view produces the most representative view and other exterior scopes would be just secondary. Anyway, in such a building with an interesting interior different scopes for interior and exterior are usually asked.--Pere prlpz (talk) 18:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
• You are right. I forgot the suffix "exterior". --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
•  Support Per above.--Pere prlpz (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Myrabella (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2012 (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:
Benediktinerkloster Münsterschwarzach, church, interior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope and Good work --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2013 (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:
Townhall of Schlüsselfeld (exterior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Beautiful picture. It lacks a caption in English and it would be useful to link the scope to the category. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

•  Done --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
•  Support pefect now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

This is one of the images forming part of the Valued image set: City gate Schlüsselfeld on Wikimedia Commons. The image set has been assessed under the valued image set criteria and is considered the most valued set on Commons within the scope: City gate Schlüsselfeld You can see its nomination at Commons:Valued image candidates/City gate Schlüsselfeld.

★ 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:
Evangelische Stadtkirche (Kitzingen), exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2013 (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:
Stadtturm (Prichsenstadt) as seen from west.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope imo. --JLPC (talk) 10:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:16, 27 October 2013 (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:
Townhall of Göllheim, Germany (exterior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Best in Scope and useful. --JLPC (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Best in Scope and useful. --JLPC (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Support : good choice imo. --JLPC (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

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

review

 Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 Question "northeast exposure == "view from notheast"? --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:46, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

•  Comment yes, this is equivalent --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:21, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 16:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

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

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Mackert-Haus (Tauberbischofsheim), north west exposure.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:50, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:58, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose Misses criteria Not any church is worth a Valued Image scope. Denis Barthel (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 12:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Pfarrkirche St. Kilian (Haßfurt), view from southwest.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Very nice picture what shame is not used in encyclopedias. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• • Now it is. --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
•  Oppose I think it is not the best in scope. The best is File:Schloss Sigmaringen NW.jpg IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

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

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Obere Karolinenstraße 5 in Bamberg, facade.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Will you please:

• Add geocoordinates to the image file.
• Wikilink (de:verlinken) the descriptions. If you are uneasy about Wiklinking the English language version, I am willing to assist.

Martinvl (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

•  Support Useful - you only need add geocoding on the caption. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  •  Done --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. --Medium⁶₉ ^{You wanted talk to me?} 00:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
St. Johannes Evangelist (Tübingen), view from NW.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:58, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Best in scope. lNeverCry 22:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

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

review

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Haaggasse 13b from east.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:56, 8 January 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:
Jakobuskirche (Tübingen) view from south west.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Best (and only?) photo in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:25, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:04, 9 January 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:
St. Johannes Evangelist (Tübingen), interior, view towards the altar.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:39, 10 January 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:
Schloss Weilerbach from southwest.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:54, 7 April 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:
Theater Aachen, view from northwest.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:36, 27 May 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:
Münsterplatz 7-9 (Aachen), facade.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope --Llez (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Niederlande

★ 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:
Grote Gracht 62, Maastricht.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and Best in Scope Sixflashphoto (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:55, 10 September 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:
In Den Vogel Struys, exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Until now the best image in scope for me. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Surely "until now". :-) Pictures of buildings are not unrepeatable (as your photographs of racings) --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:38, 11 September 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:
North portal of Sint-Servaasbasiliek, Maastricht.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:10, 12 September 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:
Interior of nave of Sint-Servaasbasiliek, Maastricht, view to the altar.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:20, 18 September 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:
Graanmarkt 1, Maastricht.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and the best in scope for me -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:03, 19 September 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:
South portal (Bergportaal) of Sint-Servaasbasiliek, Maastricht.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Very good despite the tourists. For me the best in scope. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:23, 21 September 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:
Feilzustersklooster (Maastricht), view from south.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful image -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:46, 22 September 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:
Helpoort (Maastricht), view from WSW.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support A large scope, but this is the best IMO. --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:24, 24 September 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:
Bisschopsmolen (Maastricht), millwheel.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:04, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Israel

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

review

 InfoCoordinates are in the Exif data and will be added by dschwenbot --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

•  Question Would the scope "Mount of Beatitudes" be appropriate? I read that the church is actually a chapel (but what's the difference?) and I couldn't find its actual name (maybe it's on the German WP but I can't read German). Other criteria ok. --Eusebius (talk) 17:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The picture shows the church, but not the whole hill. So I think "Church of Beatituds" is the better scope. I haven't found any other name for the church. You can call it chapel because it's not a en:parish church(that's the main difference in Germany) but it seems it's mostly called a church. --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    • OK, but I think you should include geographic precisions in the scope (with a link, maybe). --Eusebius (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
      • What does "geographic precisions" mean in this case? --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
        • Maybe something like "Church of the Beatitudes, Mount of Beatitudes", "Church of the Beatitudes, Israel" or what seems most natural to you (there might be other churches of the Beatitudes). I know that the geotag gives precise information, but I think we have to make sure that the scope cannot be ambiguous. --Eusebius (talk) 08:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
          • Then I prefer "Church of the Beatitudes, Galilee". --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 12:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 12:28, 22 November 2008 (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:
Rock of the Multiplication, Tabgha.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 InfoIt is said, that Jesus laid the fishes and bread down on this rock. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

•  Comment Could you please add an English description too? Lycaon (talk) 08:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

   Done --Eusebius (talk) 10:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your help, I was on a business trip for two days and couldn't it make better. --Berthold Werner (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
    • You're welcome! --Eusebius (talk) 16:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Thank you. I don't see anything standing in the way for promotion now. Lycaon (talk) 11:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2008 (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:
Greek Orthodox Church of the Annunciation.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Info The church is located over an underground spring that according to Eastern Orthodox belief is where the Virgin Mary was drawing water at the time of the Annunciation. There is another church in Nazareth where according to Roman Catholic tradition, the Annunciation took place.

•  Support It's beautiful. --ComputerHotline (talk) 09:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment Fixed categorization. Would you care to make the scope "Greek Orthodox Church of the Annunciation"? --Eusebius (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
•  Info Added link to the scope. Attention with the categories: "Church of the Annunciation" seems to be for the roman-catholic church of annuciation only. I will create now an own category for this church. --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 21:47, 20 December 2008 (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:
Haifa.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support I prefer this one: more natural colours and geometry. I would make the scope simply "Haifa", though. --Eusebius (talk) 13:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Haifa BW 4.JPG: +1 <--
2. Panorama Haifa.jpg: 0
=>
File:Haifa BW 4.JPG: Promoted. <--
File:Panorama Haifa.jpg: Declined.

--Eusebius (talk) 08:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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

review

•  Comment I think it is ok, but before supporting I'd like to have your opinion about the pertinence of having an "inside" and an "outside" scope for this building? I guess I would support with a scope limited to the inside. --Eusebius (talk) 12:36, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Info Changed the scope. --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
•  Support No pb for me. I took the liberty to use parenthesis for the "interior" subscope, for the sake of consistency with existing building-related VIs. --Eusebius (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2009 (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:
Shrine of the Báb.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Displays scope well. JalalV (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2009 (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:
Model of Jerusalem in the Late Second Temple Period.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support This is a good overview of the model, but maybe the perspective can be deceiving about its size. this picture, although not very good in quality, gives a better impression about its size (but fails to show any building in detail). The fact that the temple is a key feature of the model makes the nominee the best candidate, according to me. --Eusebius (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 09:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
St. Peter's Church, Jaffa (exterior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support OK for me, criteria met. Lycaon (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 11:18, 1 February 2009 (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:
Pool of Bethesda.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Looks ok to me. --Eusebius (talk) 08:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk)

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

review

•  Comment OK for me, I could live with interior/exterior scopes. What do you think? --Eusebius (talk) 12:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Info Sometimes I forget to specify interior/exterior. --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Saint Peter church, Capernaum to Saint Peter church, Capernaum (interior) --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 18:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Yes, scope change was necessary. Lycaon (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 12:14, 17 February 2009 (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:
Church of the Flagellation (exterior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:30, 25 August 2011 (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:
Church of the Flagellation (interior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:30, 25 August 2011 (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:
Damascus Gate.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best for the scope. Yann (talk) 16:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:08, 18 January 2012 (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:
Arch of Ecce Homo.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Palästina

★ 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:
Tell es-Sultan.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:53, 26 October 2010 (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:
Shepherds Field Chapel, Beit Sahour (exterior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment Please create gallery and link to it in the scope. พ.s. 10:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Comment 1. Please don't make changes in the nominaters scope, 2. There is no rule that claims a gallery--Berthold Werner (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Italien

★ 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:
Marcus Aurelius replica in Rome.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Info The scope is identically to the Commons Category [2]

•  Comment I think the closest competitor would be this one (good contrast but more distracting elements and worse angle). --Eusebius (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I think the right hand is important for this statue. --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Eusebius (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2008 (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:
Basilica di San Francesco (Assisi).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Info I think from in this view you can see that it consists of a Lower and a Upper church --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Beautiful pic. The best one of the related categories, according to me. --Eusebius (talk) 15:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2009 (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:
Basilica of Sant'Apollinare in Classe, Ravenna (exterior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment OK for me. An "exterior" subscope would be OK, I guess, what do you think? Also I would tend to put "Ravenna" at the end of the scope, but I'd support this formulation as well. --Eusebius (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Info Scope changed. Perhaps we should make a rule, how scopes for buildings should be created? --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me. About new rules, I don't know. --Eusebius (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 17:33, 12 April 2009 (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:
Basilica of Sant'Apollinare in Classe, Ravenna (interior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Fine with me for both value and quality. All criterias are met.--Mbz1 (talk) 03:30, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 08:47, 17 April 2009 (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:
Temple of Hera (Agrigento).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in rich scope. (The good side of the ruins, is that it is not necessary to add, inside or exterior, in the scope). --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

• --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Myrabella (talk) 00:19, 6 January 2013 (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:
Palazzo Vermexio (Syracuse) exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

•  Support Meets all criteria. Architect and year of construction is included at the category level. cmadler (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 07:52, 12 January 2013 (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:
Palazzo degli Elefanti (Catania).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support : all criteria met. --JLPC (talk) 09:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

•  Support Meets all criteria. cmadler (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2013 (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:
Duomo San Nicolò (Taormina), exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:34, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

•  Support Meets all criteria. cmadler (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2013 (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:
Duomo San Nicolò (Taormina), interior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support all criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ikar.us (talk) 12:07, 31 January 2013 (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:
Teatro Massimo Vincenzo Bellini (Catania), exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:26, 4 February 2013 (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:
Palazzo Tezzano (Catania), exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Vicl:1

★ 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:
Cathedral (Syracuse), interior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Godot13 (talk) 06:38, 17 February 2013 (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:
Cathedral (Catania), interior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Godot13 (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2013 (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:
Fonte Aretusa (Syracuse).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Godot13 (talk) 03:25, 27 February 2013 (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:
Cathedral (Monreale), exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope. Architectural details of the facade are better visible in this image. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Godot13 (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2013 (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:
Santa Maria dell'Elemosina (Catania), exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:11, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Myrabella (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2013 (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:
Cathedral (Syrakus), exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:31, 28 March 2013 (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:
Palazzo dell'Università (Catania), exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:18, 21 June 2013 (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:
Temple of Concordia (Agrigento).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in rich scope--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2013 (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:
Grave of Vincenzo Bellini (Catania).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:56, 5 July 2013 (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:
Cathedral (Monreale), interior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --JLPC (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:43, 12 July 2013 (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:
Teatro Politeama (Palermo), exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope. --JLPC (talk) 07:19, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2013 (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:
Maria Santissima Annunziata (Trapani), exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support all criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:10, 25 July 2013 (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:
Maria Santissima Annunziata (Trapani), interior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:07, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2013 (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:
Duomo (Cefalù), exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in rich scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:43, 11 August 2013 (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:
Santa Maria d'Itria (Cefalù), exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support All criteria met. Halavar (talk) 12:54, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2013 (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:
Cattedrale dei Santi Filippo e Giacomo (Sorento), exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support : useful. --JLPC (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Godot13 (talk) 04:36, 6 December 2013 (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:
Cattedrale dei Santi Filippo e Giacomo (Sorrento), interior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope imo. --JLPC (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:41, 13 December 2013 (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:
Basilica di Sant'Antonino (Sorrento), interior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Halavar (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2013 (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:
Santuario della Madonna del Carmine (Sorrento), exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Halavar (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Halavar (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Chiesa di San Francesco d'Assisi (Sorrento), interior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope. Halavar (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Halavar (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

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

review

•  Comment IMO this is not the Theatre but the Odeion. (sorry) --P e z i (talk) 10:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment Think the scope is a bit too broad - the picture gives a good overview of the auditorium and the stage but there are perhaps also interesting backstage rooms which are not visible here. --P e z i (talk) 15:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
  • The ruins in the background (with the columns) where originally the backstage, later it was used as gladiator barracks. --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Considering your extra information I think it's Best in Scope and useful. --P e z i (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Casa Rossa (Anacapri), exterior before 2013 restoration.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Oppose The building has since been restored. His appearance has changed. Cf. file:Capri island - Campania - Italy - July 12th 2013 - 07.jpg --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

•  Info scope changed --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Good with new scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Halavar (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Support : good and useful work. --JLPC (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Best in Scope + detail... --JLPC (talk) 18:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Duomo di Santa Maria Assunta in Naples, italy (facade).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support OK for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
•  SupportThis one gives better idea of the whole space. I also like the notes in the picture. Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Naples duomo facade.jpg: +1 (current VI within same scope) <--
2. Napoli BW 2013-05-16 11-40-12.jpg: +2 
=>
File:Naples duomo facade.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former. <--
File:Napoli BW 2013-05-16 11-40-12.jpg: Promoted.

--Halavar (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Support : best in rich scope imo. --JLPC (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Best in Scope imo. --JLPC (talk) 08:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Halavar (talk) 22:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Best in Scope and (very) useful. --JLPC (talk) 16:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Best in Scope. --JLPC (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

•  Support Nev1 (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

promoted

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Chiostri di Santa Chiara (Napoli), NNE view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment : good work but I'd have added "SW (or NE...) view" to the scope. --JLPC (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

•  Done additionally I added the heading parameter to the geolocation. (from experience it takes a while until it is shown in a map) --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  •  Support : Good and useful. --JLPC (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

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

review

All criteria met imo. --JLPC (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
San Filippo Neri dei Girolamini (Naples), facade.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope Nev1 (talk) 11:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Support : good choice. --JLPC (talk) 14:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Best in Scope. --JLPC (talk) 17:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Best in Scope --JLPC (talk) 14:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. P e z i (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Best in Scope. --JLPC (talk) 15:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. P e z i (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Good & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Support : useful. --JLPC (talk) 09:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Comment Please, Berthold, could you reduce the effects of perspective correction (easy to fix)? --JLPC (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand which effect you mean. (?) --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I mean the statue seems higher (and thinner) than it really is. I've tried to fix the problem with Gimp, using the command "scale" (as I usually do with my photos when I correct the perspective) : as usual, it's not perfect but better imo -- especially according to the other (tilted) picture in the category. Sorry for my English. Mail sent too :) --JLPC (talk) 08:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for your hints, I made a new version. --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

 Best in Scope --JLPC (talk) 16:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. P e z i (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Best in Scope. --JLPC (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Basilica di Sant'Antonino (Sorrento), exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support : good choice. --JLPC (talk) 15:30, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Comment Nice picture, Berthold, but can you add "NW (or SE...) view" to the scope, as we usually do here -- except for buildings or sites that can be seen (and photographed) from only one point of view ? Thanks in advance. Friendly. --JLPC (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done I also added the geolocation to the file description. --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

 Support : useful. --JLPC (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:49, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Best in Scope and useful. --JLPC (talk) 18:06, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Temple of Athena (Paestum), view from SW.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope and useful. --JLPC (talk) 13:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Temple of Athena (Paestum), view from SE.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope too. --JLPC (talk) 13:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Santa Caterina a Formiello (Naples), exterior, view from southwest.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment It would be nice to add "facade" or view orientation.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

•  Done --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
•  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

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

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 06:27, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

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

review

 Support it is a good compromise. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
San Sabino (Canosa di Puglia) - Interior, nave.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Zoppo59 (talk) 19:44, 3 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:
Cathedral (Trani) - exterior, view from SW.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in Scope -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment I would cut off the left part with the people; they have nothing to do with the scope and additionally the picture would be more balanced --Llez (talk) 05:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
  
  •  Support Better now --Llez (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:57, 30 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:
Cathedral (Trani) - Interior, crypt.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and used. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Frankreich

★ 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:
Villa Ephrussi de Rothschild.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:36, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Monaco

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

review

•  Support all criteria met --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Spanien

★ 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:
Arch of Marbella view from west.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Nice photo and best in scope. Also a QI, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:25, 13 January 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:
Hermitage of Santo Cristo de la Vera Cruz, Marbella, interior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:49, 14 January 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:
Altar of Santa Maria del Mar (Torremolinos).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:22, 15 January 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:
Puerta de la Asunción (Cathedral of Seville).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Good --Ercé (talk) 13:18, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:46, 13 February 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:
Puerta de San Miguel o del Nacimiento (Cathedral of Seville).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Best in scope in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:47, 13 February 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:
Palace of the archbishop (Sevilla), facade.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:17, 18 February 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:
Monument of Don Juan in Seville.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful but would not it be better to put monument rather than statue . The satue is the bronze work, the monument includes the pedestal. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Done --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Gibraltar

★ 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:
Grand Casemates Square, view from south.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Olivier LPB (talk) 23:27, 16 January 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:
Cathedral of St. Mary the Crowned, Gibraltar, facade from southwest.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:10, 20 January 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:
Cathedral of St. Mary the Crowned, Gibraltar, bell tower from west.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support, useful and best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 19:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:25, 22 January 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:
Cathedral of St. Mary the Crowned, Gibraltar, portal.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:15, 22 January 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:
Gibraltar War Memorial from southwest.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Because this has the least of the cannon of the 3 photos I see in scope, this is the best for use as a thumbnail in articles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:32, 31 January 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:
Queen Elizabeth II post boxes, Type C.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment, this scope is too broad, there are many different styles of QEII post boxes, we need to be more specific I think, to allow coverage of them all. Here are some of them. DeFacto (talk). 18:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Thank you for that hint. --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
•  Support now, useful and best in scope. The post box categories are very untidy, and it's difficult to find all the ones of that type, but I looked at dozens! DeFacto (talk). 16:55, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Jordanien

★ 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:
King Abdullah I Mosque (exterior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Light isn't ideal and doesn't enhance the blue dome but there's no obviously better image in the category to illustrate the scope, IMO. So I support it! --Myrabella (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
•  Request Scope should be slightly modified to "King Abdullah I Mosque (exterior)" as an image has been nominated under the "interior" scope. --Myrabella (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
• Ok. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:10, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Myrabella (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2009 (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:
King Abdullah I Mosque (interior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support all criteria met, best in scope --George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Myrabella (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2009 (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:
El Deir.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope. --MattiPaavola (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2009 (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 Tombs of Kings, Petra.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Request I would suggest to add an indication of location in the scope (e.g. "The Tombs of Kings, Petra") to avoid any confusion with the Egyptian Valley of the Kings where there are a lot of royal tombs too... --Myrabella (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
• Done. --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support All criteria met, Best Panaorama in scope and very well documented.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:57, 20 February 2010 (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:
Temple of Hercules (Amman).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment About the scope wording : "temple of Xxx" seems to be the usual form, see en:List of ancient monuments in Rome#Temples for instance.--Myrabella (talk) 13:30, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
• Ok. Scope changed. --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I'm ready to support. To me, "Temple of Hercules (Amman)" would be enough for the scope, with a link to the newly created category: Category:Temple of Hercules (Amman). --Myrabella (talk) 14:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Ok. --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
•  Support Quite OK to me, all criteria met. --Myrabella (talk) 23:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 14:34, 23 December 2009 (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:
Karak castle.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

Support ;Meets all six criteria Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 15:58, 29 December 2009 (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:
Western theatre of Umm Qais.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Good nomination. All criteria met, well illustrative --George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 08:18, 18 February 2010 (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:
South Gate (Gerasa).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support all criteria met. Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:36, 25 February 2010 (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:
South theater (Gerasa).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Best for this scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment I slightly tend to prefer that one because it shows more of the "cavea" (the audience seating portion in Roman theatre), but this one is fine too. --Myrabella (talk) 20:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Myrabella (talk) 09:13, 3 March 2010 (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:
Wadi Rum.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Good panorama, best in scope. Criteria met --George Chernilevsky ^talk 05:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:39, 8 March 2010 (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:
Mount Nebo (Jordan).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support I agree with reason. All criteria met --George Chernilevsky ^talk 07:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
•  neutral for now I think the scope would improve if at least the country was added. Lycaon (talk) 22:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed, since there are several Mount Nebos (but they all took the name from this one). --Ikar.us (talk) 09:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Mount Nebo to Mount Nebo (Jordan) --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

---

• Confirm  Support with new scope --George Chernilevsky ^talk 11:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
•  Support. --Ikar.us (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ägypten

★ 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:
Mosque of Sultan Hasan, Cairo (exterior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

• Confusing view. Looks like the minarettes were located diametral. But the best available.  Support --Ikar.us (talk) 13:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Perhaps add the city to the scope? --Ikar.us (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
• Seems the Name ist unique, but perhaps the scope and the catgory should be changed to "Mosque of Sultan Hassan" [3] --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • There is Hassan II Mosque in Casablanca. --Ikar.us (talk) 14:14, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The mosque is with single s in all languages except English. de:Hassan explains the s/ss problem and lists en:Al-Nasir Al-Hasan as single s. en: has no article about him yet. I think the English mosque article should be renamed. --Ikar.us (talk) 14:20, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Scope changed. --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:32, 28 November 2010 (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:
Al-Rifa'i Mosque.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Question -- Why not show the whole building, as in this picture? -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Comment This picture shows two mosques, the Sultan Hassan Mosque and the Al-Rifa'i mosque, and is of bad quality. But you may set up a MVR --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Very good argument --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 12:52, 1 January 2011 (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:
Mosque of Ibn Tulun, Cairo.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Ikar.us (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

• But again I'd  Request to add the city to the scope. Maybe it's considered common knowledge, but where is the threshold? --Ikar.us (talk) 12:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
• Scope changed. --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:51, 29 November 2010 (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:
Saint Catherine's Monastery, Mount Sinai.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Good one! Check the licence status, there is something...--MrPanyGoff (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• License added. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support The image meets all five criteria's. PhotoGenIc (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Sockpuppet. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support APTOC (talk) 04:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Sockpuppet -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
•  Support --Murdockcrc (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Katharinenkloster Sinai BW 2.jpg: +0
2. Saint Catherine Sinai.jpg: +0 
3. Katharinenkloster Sinai BW 3.jpg: +0 
4. Katharinenkloster Sinai BW 4.jpg: +2 
=>
File:Katharinenkloster Sinai BW 2.jpg: Declined.
File:Saint Catherine Sinai.jpg: Declined
File:Katharinenkloster Sinai BW 3.jpg: Declined.
File:Katharinenkloster Sinai BW 4.jpg: Promoted.

--George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:14, 1 January 2011 (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:
Sphinx of Memphis.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful and best in scope. Lymantria (talk) 14:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

MVR Scores: 
1. Commons:Valued image candidates/Memphis BW 1.jpg: -1
2. Commons:Valued image candidates/Memphis BW 2.jpg: +1 <--
=>
File:Memphis BW 1.jpg: Declined.
File:Memphis BW 2.jpg: Promoted. <-- 

Lymantria (talk) 11:06, 27 October 2013 (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:
Al Hussein Mosque (Kairo), exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 12:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Malta

★ 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:
Ta' Pinu Shrine (exterior).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:33, 28 December 2011 (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:
Azure Window (Gozo).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - high quality, and an FP, geocoded etc. --Claritas (talk) 17:00, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:20, 12 January 2012 (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:
Mdina, Main Gate.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Suggestion: Attach the scope to category: Mdina, Main Gate or Mdina, Main Gate--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

•  Done I made a own category for this gate. --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
•  Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:06, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:25, 14 February 2012 (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:
Office of the Attorney General (Malta), exterior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Good but, it would be useful to add: Facade or exterior in scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
St Paul's Pro-Cathedral (Valletta), facade.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support : useful. --JLPC (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
San Anton Palace (Attard, Malta), east exposure.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Kroatien

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

review

 Oppose - One of the criteria for a VI read "Not any church is worth a Valued Image scope. Cathedral scopes are OK, but for other churches there should be a good reason, like being a pilgrimage place, being really famous, being architecturally exceptional... ". I have not seen any "good reason" for this image to be a VI - it is not a cathedral nor is it a place of pilgrimage nor does it have any exceptional architectural features. If I have missed anything, then please document them. Having said this, this is good photography and might well be suitable for submission as a "Quality image" where technical considerations are more important than the supporting documentation. -- Martinvl (talk) 14:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Useful It does not appear that the interest is here achritectural order. He could be the historical point of view because of the age of the building. But above all places of worship deserves our consideration, ethnological point of view.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

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

review

 Best in Scope --Halavar (talk) 11:04, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

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

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

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

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 08:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

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

review

 Comment Image needs geolocation. --Halavar (talk) 15:05, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

•  Done --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Good now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 17:01, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support For me the best in scope -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
St. Kosmas and Damian church in Fažana, Croatia, view from west.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Church of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Opatija), facade.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Church of the Annunciation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Opatija), interior.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Slowenien

★ 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:
Town Hall Ljubljana, facade.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support, best in populous scope. DeFacto (talk). 23:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Cars

★ 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:
Le Zebre vehicles.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 InfoTaken at a public car exhibition in Konz, Germany

•  Comment Couldn't the people be avoided here? They are distracing. --Sfu (talk) 06:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
•  InfoAs already written, the picture is taken on an exhibition. It was already difficult to get it without people standing in front of the car. I don't think that people in the background are distracing. --Berthold Werner (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Ok. Image is very descriptive anyway. Geocoding is not aplicable to a moving vecicle. Much better quality than there. --Sfu (talk) 10:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose (for now). Beg to differ about geocoding. If this was an exhibition, then it interesting to know where that exhibition takes/took place. Lycaon (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  •  Info Location added. --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Thank you. This does make an interesting difference. Lycaon (talk) 21:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support

=> Promoted. --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:49, 29 August 2008 (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:
Citroen C4 (1928 - 1932).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 InfoNew try with another picture. Better perspective, less people around --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Support I support this one over your precedent one, because there are no people in the frame. Yet, I still think it would be better without the orange and white sheets behind the front glass. For the record, I precedently pointed this picture as an interesting (although rather small) competitor. --Eusebius (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose No geocoding and nothing in the description to say where the image was taken. Bidgee (talk) 10:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • •  Support Seems to meet all the VI criteria now. Bidgee (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Added --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support - good picture, smart view point. Illustrating perfectly the subject. Yug (talk) 15:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

   Comment The VIC was promoted by the nominator earlier than 48 hours after the last vote. I have reverted to a "supported" state. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: 3 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2008 (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:
Chevrolet Fleetline.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support All 6 criteria completed. The only front picture of Chevrolet Fleetline and a quality one. --B.navez (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2008 (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:
Lea-Francis 14 Sports.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Question About the scope: is it "14" or "14hp"? I've found "14hp Sports" (with capital S?) in the English article and on this website. --Eusebius (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • In the participant list [4] it is namend as Lea Francis HP 14 Sports. In the table of the en/Wikipedia it ist named 14 Sport and in the text The 14hp Saloon and Sports were luxurious and sporty vehicles. On the paper on [5] you can read The Lea-Francis "Twelve" and "Fourteen" Two Seater Sports Model. A problem may be, that you there a sometime offical and internal names for cars (as an example: my car is an Audi A4 that is intern called B5 and before I had an Audi 80 that was a B4). So it might be difficult to get a distinct scope for an old and rare car. --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you just put a capital "S" to "Sports" then? --Eusebius (talk) 10:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2008 (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:
BMW 700 coupe.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Nice. Best pic of that car. There are reflections on the windows, but it's still ok to me. As a typical frenchman, I would have preferred having an accent in the scope ("coupé"), but apparently both orthographs are correct :-) --Eusebius (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 07:46, 28 September 2008 (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:
Renault Alpine A110.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Several pictures in the category. I would have prefered a more neutral vehicle (without the numbers on the side and on the front), but this is the best picture of the category to me (quality and angle). --Eusebius (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 11:12, 24 September 2008 (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:
Cadillac Coupe de Ville 1959-1964.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment Among the 1959-1964 ones, only this other picture is of interest, I think (less interesting angle, but good quality and no distracting people in the background). --Eusebius (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Strong support PMG (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 19:38, 20 October 2008 (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:
Thurner RS.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Reasonable scope, only three other images, which are definitely inferior to this one. -- H005 (talk) 17:43, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Oppose as not yet eligible for VI status. Thank you for nominating this image. Unfortunately, it cannot at present become a valued image since it currently fails valued image criterion 5 (should be geocoded, but is not). "All images are expected to be geocoded unless it would not be appropriate to do so". I have not reviewed the nomination against all the criteria, but if you are able to fix this issue and would like me to re-evaluate the image please leave me a message on my talk page. - Rastaman3000 (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

  I noticed the lack of a geocode, but what's that for? The car is is an automobile, and it doesn't matter in any way where it was. -- H005 (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Comment Added geocode, a description where the photograph was taken and a link to the rear view to increase the value. --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2009 (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:
Glas 2600 and 3000.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment I think the scope should be Glas 2600 & 3000, as Glas 3000 is the same vehicle type just with a beemer logo on it.

Yes, the body is the same --Berthold Werner (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Support I can't find a better image, even not for the now extended scope. -- H005 (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment Could the scope be linked in an appropriate/clever way? Maybe "Glas 2600 and 3000"? --Eusebius (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2009 (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:
DKW Munga.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Comment Hmm, not sure, there's also File:1958DKWMunga.jpg, which has less photographic quality, but not that damned yellow cardboard across the hood. -- H005 (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

•  Support Best image for this scope. Yann (talk) 16:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
•  OpposeFile:DKW Munga8 44PS 974ccm 1963 1.jpg is the better image 79.68.138.137 19:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC) Please log in to vote. -- H005 (talk) 08:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 17:14, 31 August 2009 (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:
DKW Junior de Luxe.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Oppose - not geocoded. --Rastaman3000 (talk) - Visit my new user-page! 14:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC) -- 109.67.1.248 17:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

•  Done Location added. --Berthold Werner (talk) 17:12, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Best in scope, all criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Agree. --Ikar.us (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 13:30, 3 April 2010 (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:
Ford P4.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

All criteria met, best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ikar.us (talk) 16:46, 12 April 2010 (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:
Ford P5.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Appears to be best in category. Adam Cuerden (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:13, 27 April 2010 (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:
Peugeot 202.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Best in scope except for one thing: It lacks the lion on the bottom of the rear fender. I have a restored 20 years ago and I rode with for awhile. Thank you for the memories.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 19:14, 15 January 2011 (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:
Fiat 900.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope and useful. --JLPC (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:12, 28 November 2013 (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:
Datsun 260Z.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope and useful. --JLPC (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:53, 1 November 2013 (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:
Simca 8 Berline.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:56, 13 August 2013 (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:
Ford Eifel, front view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:47, 25 February 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:
Ford Eifel, rear view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:48, 25 February 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:
Mercury Marquis (1973-1978).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 13:44, 26 March 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:
Studebaker Champion Generation 1.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:28, 9 April 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:
Chrysler 300 (non-letter), 1968 convertible, front view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ivanhercaz (talk) 14:01, 15 April 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:
Chrysler 300 (non-letter), 1968 convertible, rear view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment - I don't have the time to look through every photo that might be in scope, so I'll just ask anyone who hasn't voted for this for a reason other than the extraneous one of it not being used outside of Commons to please speak up and indicate what that might be. For my part, I'd only ask whether "rear view" is a recognized scope for car photos. It seems logical as a scope, but I do want to know. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:43, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Here Commons:Valued image candidates/Ford Eifel BW 2011-09-03 14-30-33.JPG we had already a "rear view scope" --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

•  Support Useful --Llez (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ivanhercaz (talk) 14:02, 15 April 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:
Ford P6-12m, front view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope, IMO (the other two aren't as good), although if you want it to display even better in articles, you could get away with cropping the sides a little bit.--Peulle (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Cameras

★ 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:
Rollei SL 35 E.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:12, 9 February 2011 (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:
Chinon CP 9 AF.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 InfoThe CP 9 AF was the last single-lens reflex camera produced by japanese facturer Chinon

•  Support Better than Image:Chinon CP-9 AF BW 1.JPG. Geocoding inrelevant. --Sfu (talk) 08:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support =>

promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:57, 2 September 2008 (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:
Agfa Click.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Info Agfa Click and Agfa Clack are in Germany synonyms for cheap and simple cameras.

•  Support I am not willing to support just any old camera model, but this particular model seems to have had an important role as new camera product type, when it was launched. This seems to be underlined by the wide-spread use of the image in existing Wikimedia project content pages. Other criteria satisfied as well. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --Foroa (talk) 06:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 08:36, 13 October 2008 (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:
Minox 35 ML .
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --LivioAndronico talk 18:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Agfamatic 108.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support - Only profile shot of its scope, and a really good one at that. Good and clear depiction of the camera and its design. My only criticism would be that it'd be better if the wrist strap was completely in the shot, as to also convey the camera's relative size. Otherwise, a very good and useful photo for those wanting to see what this camera model looks like. Philip Terry Graham (talk) 20:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. ÂkBY$ 11:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Phones

★ 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:
Alcatel One Touch Max.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support : useful. --JLPC (talk) 09:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Other

★ 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:
Electronic medical thermometer.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Satisfies 5 criteria, in my opinion. No geocoding exception claimed, but it is obviously a studio image. Please claim that exception, if applicable, in future nominations. Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2009 (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:
Earphones.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support The image lacks geocoding, but I guess it is not mandatory here. Simple, but all criteria met.--Jetstreamer (talk) 10:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 20:31, 28 December 2011 (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:
Jumping dolphins.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

• I like this one, makes a good companion to the two others (mine) nominated above; this one has no humans - just animals. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support The competition is pretty hard but among the nominated images. I think this one (marginally) illustrates the scope best as I find the presence of humans in some competing photos a little distracting. Another aspect of tis MVR is the scope which I thought about for a while is the plural dolphins. Maybe a singular "jumping dolphin" would have been just as or perhaps slightly more relevant, as the added aspect of having several gives less detals to show the actual jump of an animal in review size. On the other hand the plural gives the added element of the synchronous jump of several dolphins, which I find fascinating. Finally, I think the categorization effort made in relation to this MVR is a good piece of spin-off work (thanks for doing that), which is an asset of this project. --Slaunger (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 01:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

MVR scores:
Commons:Valued image candidates/Dolphins at Loro Parque 13.JPG: 0
Commons:Valued image candidates/Dolphins at Loro Parque 04-crop.JPG: 0
Commons:Valued image candidates/Dolphins Loro Parque BW 1.jpg: +2 <--
Commons:Valued image candidates/Dolphins Loro Parque BW 4.jpg: 0
Results:
File:Dolphins at Loro Parque 13.JPG: Declined
File:Dolphins at Loro Parque 04-crop.JPG: Declined
File:Dolphins Loro Parque BW 1.jpg: Promoted <--
File:Dolphins Loro Parque BW 4.jpg: Declined

--Slaunger (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)