User talk:Palauenc05/Archive 16

Valued Image Promoted

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

review

 Support Useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 17:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trier Lokrichthalle aussen (2).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Michielverbeek 18:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trier Lokrichthalle aussen (3).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality -- Spurzem 17:32, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:09, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

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

review

•  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Wayside cross (1829) in Trier, Sickingenstraße 11..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Good image, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
3-star chef Helmut Thieltges (2003).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

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

review

•  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zella-Mehlis 50 Pfennig Nov 1921.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Llez 06:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Unterschrift Paul Bocuse.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Llez 06:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
50 Pfennig Notgeld banknote (1921) of Zella-Mehlis.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support What a beautiful print! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

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

review

•  Comment I'll be happy to support, but it should say "Michelin 3-star chef", since there are a lot of star-granting bodies. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:31, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment "... a lot of star-granting bodies" (?) I'm surprised, which other restaurant reviews than the Michelin Guide do you know that grant stars? I don't know any. Nevertheless, Paul Bocuse, who signed that menu for me, was a world-famous chef. I wouldn't mind changing the scope, but for such a celebrity, a scope like "Signature of Paul Bocuse" would be perfectly OK. --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

• There are loads of them. For example, in the U.S., there's the Forbes Travel Guide, and the New York Times is one of many newspapers and magazines that grant stars. However, I totally agree with your suggestion for a scope change. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

•  Support Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Triptis 10 Pfennig 1921.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 17:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Longen Wegekreuz 1668.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality -- Spurzem 20:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mehring Wegekreuz 1663.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Michielverbeek 19:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mehring Wegekreuz Schulstraße.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality -- Spurzem 20:36, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pölich Wappen Kanzlerhof 1578.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --LexKurochkin 14:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pölich Nischenkreuz 1668.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Commonists 15:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mehring Wegekreuz 1663 Spielestraße.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Commonists 15:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

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

review

 Support --Andrei (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Structural element dated 1578 at Kanzlerhof in Pölich, Rhineland-Palatinate.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Fountain and wayside cross (1663), in Mehring, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Wayside cross (1663) in Mehring, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful image -- Spurzem (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Wayside cross (1668), in Pölich, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 20:03, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Wayside cross (early 18^th century) in Mehring, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Wayside cross (1668), in Longen, Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:24, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Triptis 5 Pfennig 1921.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Berthold Werner 16:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

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

review

•  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trier Sankt Matthias Gnadenkapelle.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good focus to the subject, nice chapel. -- Ikan Kekek 19:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trier Sankt Matthias Krypta Schlussstein.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality -- Spurzem 20:25, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trier Sankt Matthias Krypta Kruzifix.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality -- Spurzem 20:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

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

review

•  Support Good and useful image -- Spurzem (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

support

I had no way to know that it was not part of the church. It appears to be one building. Sorry. -- Jim Evans (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem, feel free to vote again. --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trier Sankt Matthias Gnadenkapelle (2).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Berthold Werner 10:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trier Lokrichthalle aussen (Zughaken).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Berthold Werner 10:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Boss (architecture) in the crypt of St. Matthias' Basilica, Trier, showing a bishop and a fabulous beast..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope and useful -- Spurzem (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Useful.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

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

review

•  Comment I'm not seeing this in the linked gallery. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I see it, though. Have a closer look. --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Yes, I saw it this time. Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Embarrassed

I knew I'd made a mistake when I saw your explanation, but it was embarrassing to reverse twice in 15 minutes. The other supports seemed to give me cover for which I was grateful. :} -- Jim Evans (talk) 23:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem, we all make mistakes. The only way to avoid them, is to do nothing. --Palauenc05 (talk) 23:06, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Körperich Niedersgegen Sankt Dionysius.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Berthold Werner 13:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mertesdorf Tor Hauptstrasse 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Berthold Werner 13:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Biewer Bildstock 1720.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality -- Spurzem 18:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Biewer Sankt Jost Bildstock 1643 (2).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality -- Spurzem 18:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ehrang Osterkreuz 1827.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --LexKurochkin 17:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ehrang Geißenkreuz 1673.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. Background distracting --Wilfredor 18:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

POTD Notification

⭐ The file you uploaded, is on the main page! ⭐ The file File:Postkarte KG Heuschreck 1905.jpg, that you uploaded, is on the main page today. Thank you for your contributions to this project.

//EatchaBot (talk) 00:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Biewer Bildstock 1720 Detail.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Berthold Werner 13:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ehrang Wegekreuz 1687.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Berthold Werner 13:56, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ehrang Osterkreuz 1827 Umgebung (2).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Agnes Monkelbaan 05:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Leaning wayside cross (1827) near Trier-Ehrang.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 18:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Wayside cross, so-called Geißenkreuz (1673), near Trier-Ehrang.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Wayside shrine (1643) in Trier-Biewer.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope. Good and useful image -- Spurzem (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Wayside shrine (1720) in Trier-Biewer.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope. Good and useful -- Spurzem (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:23, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aach Wegekreuz 1824.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ermell 23:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Newel Wegekreuz 1858 (1).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ermell 23:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Newel Wegekreuz 1858 (2).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Michielverbeek 18:47, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Aach Wegekreuz 1737.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 21:58, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Newel Wegekreuz 1858 (Detail).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --LexKurochkin 20:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Valued Image Promoted

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Wayside cross (1819) near Butzweiler, Germany.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope and useful -- Spurzem (talk) 20:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Wayside cross (1687) in Trier-Ehrang.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope and useful -- Spurzem (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was 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. Dionysius Church in Niedersgegen, Germany (southwest view)..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope -- Jim Evans (talk) 14:58, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Oppose File:St. Dionysius (Niedersgegen) 01.jpg more suitable to illustrate the church from afar. -- Chris06 (talk) 16:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

 Comment I agree with Chris06. Somehow I overlooked that image. But, I don't know how to withdraw my support. -- Jim Evans (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment Dear Jim Evans, no problem, I've just helped you to withdraw your support. May I explain that the above-mentioned alternative does not concentrate on the church but also on the "Schlossgut Petry" which is a separate building. --Palauenc05 (talk) 19:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Very good and useful image,  Best in Scope: very good lighting, correct colors, good perspective, no distracting other parts -- Spurzem (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• Respectfully  Oppose, as I think File:St. Dionysius (Niedersgegen) 02.jpg is best in scope: It's better lit, shows more of the building and is more clearly separated from all other buildings. The nominated photo would be best in scope if we restrict the scope to the facade of the church. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment @ Ikan Kekek Yes, that's right, the one you mention is better than File:St. Dionysius (Niedersgegen) (2) (cropped).JPG anyway. But it's a different view direction. Maybe I should have mentioned the view direction from the file description of the nominated image in the scope. Do you think I alter the scope accordingly? --Palauenc05 (talk) 23:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment You could; that's another way to limit the scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I think so too --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

•  Done Scope changed as discussed. @ Spurzem, Jim Evans, Ikan Kekek, Archaeodontosaurus, please have another look. Thanks! --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Perfect for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
•  Support I'm good with this, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Me too --Jim Evans (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Result: 4 support, 1 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)