User talk:Palauenc05/Archive 26

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trier Jakobstraße 32 Wappen 1767.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --N. Johannes 21:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2022 (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:
Desecrated church "St. Maria Magdalena" in Trier, northwest view..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope. Good and useful image, best of this view -- Spurzem (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2022 (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:
House mark (1766) at Historical building "Zum Schwarzen Ochsen" in Trier..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope. Beautiful and useful -- Spurzem (talk) 10:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 20:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trier Porta Nigra Steinmetzzeichen MAC.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Poco a poco 19:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prizna Kroatien Fähre Cres.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Steindy 11:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trier Ruländer Hof Gartenpavillon.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Comment very slightly leaning left. --MB-one 13:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)  Done very slightly corrected. --Palauenc05 09:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)  Support good now. --MB-one 17:39, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 4 March 2022 (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:
Mason's mark "MAC" at the Porta Nigra in Trier.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support. Useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trier Sankt Paulus Petrusglocke.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ermell 19:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Novalja Marktfrau.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Virtual-Pano 18:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 8 March 2022 (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:
Cres (ship, 2005) - IMO 9334741.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support. Useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment @Palauenc05: cc: @Spurzem: IMHO the image is VI but your scope is too loose. A ship picture is about the ship and the VI scope should reflect that. The type of ship and additional location information (already found in the image description) is not needed in the scope.
• I would suggest a better scope would be one that matches the linked category for the ship that you provided, with the corresponding VI scope claim being that this image is the most valuable for a ship with this name in Commons. If it was a plant or an animal image (of which there are several on this page), it would be like claiming that the image is the most valuable for a given species, or sub-species.

scope=Cres (ship, 2005)

• As it is possible to have more than one ship of a given name built in a given year, if you want to be even more explicit, you could add the unique IMO hull number as a further descriptor. That would work too.

scope=Cres (ship, 2005) - IMO 9334741

--GRDN711 (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

• Having no response to previous comment,  Oppose with regret per COM:VIC to change status to discussed. --GRDN711 (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)  Support With the latest change in scope, I support the nomination. --GRDN711 (talk) 03:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment Thanks for your regret. I'm quite sure, there is only one ship called "Cres" that works as a ferry between Prizna and Žigljen. But how can you be sure, there is only one "Cres" built in 2005? Consequently, the scope as I put it, is more exact than your proposal. --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
•  Support It would be good to put the code IMHO in the scope, but it's execive to vote down if it's not there. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment @Palauenc05: cc: @Spurzem: @Archaeodontosaurus:
• Let’s start with my negative. To be nice and collegial, I raised as a comment what I felt was a valid issue with the scope and nothing happened for three days... I vote negative in keeping with COM:VIC; the nomination status changes from “supported” to “discussed” and there were two responses within 24 hours… (Maybe I should vote negative early and often… 😊)
• Let me be clear. I support a VI rating for this image but just not with the scope as written.
• Let’s take a plant analogy as everyone seems to be comfortable with it. Why is a suitable VI scope for a plant something like “Berberis aquifolium (Oregon grape) - inflorecences and buds” (species name, common name, specific plant feature)? Because over the years, Commons will gain uploads of a large number of plant images, and this is the only rational way to categorize a plant. The VI claim becomes that this is the most valuable image in Commons for this unique plant species (or sub-species) with a less unique common name and sub-category plant feature (if there are enough images).
• IMHO, the scope of "Cres, ferry between Prizna and Žigljen, Croatia” is too loose and not sufficiently definitive. This same ferry was on a route between Krk and the island of Cres for some time. Is the location important or unique to its value? You could write a similar scope for all 4 other images in the Cres ship category. Are they all VI? - I personally don’t think so.
• As a minimum, if you define the scope for this image as “scope=Cres (ship, 2005)” with linked category, the VI claim becomes that this is the most valuable image in Commons for a ship with this name, eliminating the other 4 images. It’s like being the most valuable image for the common name of a plant.
• The way to address the issue that Palauenc05 raises on uniqueness of the ship name, is to add the IMO number. Similar to the Latin species (sub-species) name of a plant, the IMO hull number is unique to just that ship, no matter what name it may be given over time.
• My personal scope recommendation is “scope=Cres (ship, 2005) - IMO 9334741” (common ship name, unique hull number) with the corresponding VI claim that this is the most valuable image in Commons of this unique ship with this name. It's all about the ship. --GRDN711 (talk) 08:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

 Comment @GRDN711: Being in Croatia at the moment, I'm not keen to react immediately to each comment. "Maybe I should vote negative early and often…" even if this is meant ironically, there seems to be some truth in it. So just go ahead and oppose serious nominations. Archaeo shows you how to treat colleagues politely. He supports the nomination by adding a hint. That's why I change the scope, otherwise I wouldn't. It's all a matter of style. --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:15, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment Hello @Palauenc05: Let me be clear. I did view your ship image as a serious VI nomination linked to a proper ship sub-category. Unfortunately, IMHO, it also had a scope problem of being too broad and descriptive. VI scopes are about more than style. Please see my comment below to Spurzem. --GRDN711 (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment When I mentioned style, I didn't think of scopes. --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• @GRDN711: I don't understand the insistence on the superlative. Why should or must a photo presented here for evaluation be the "most valuable" in the Commons? I think there can be many valuable images of the same subject. Best regards -- Spurzem (talk) 11:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment Hello @Spurzem: To be VI, an image must be superlative within a well-defined scope. I think COM:VIC states it well - “Single images can be proposed for valued image (VI) status. Candidates must be proposed as being the most valuable of all Commons' images within a specified scope. Judging is carried out according to the valued image criteria.”
• There can be more than one valued image of a subject provided the scopes are distinctly different. Per COM:VIS, if the scopes are essentially the same, both images go to MVR to resolve which is the best valued image for that scope.
• Choosing a scope (not too narrow; not too broad; just right) can be tricky and there is also the issue of the linked category for the scope.
• Per COM:VIS, “By nominating an image for VI status you are stating that, in your view, the image is more valuable than any other on Commons within the generic scope you have specified. Note that scope is not a simple description of your image. Rather, it defines a generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example.”
• "Cres, ferry between Prizna and Žigljen, Croatia” is an overly broad description of this ship image. Scope=Cres (ship, 2005) - IMO 9334741, linked to the ship sub-category, is a precise claim that this is the most valuable image of this unique ship in Commons.
• Per COM:VIS, there are domain-specific scope guidelines for animals, plants, buildings, works of art and natural sites. Is the VI collective ready to define a domain-specific guideline for ships? I think this would be helpful. --GRDN711 (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:20, 9 March 2022 (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:
Petrusglocke, cast by Glockengießerei Mabilon in 1953..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2022 (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:
Bronze statue of a market woman in Novalja, Croatia.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Good and useful -- Spurzem (talk) 18:53, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lun olive tree 1600 years.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Nefronus 21:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lun Olivenbaum 2000 Jahre.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Nefronus 21:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lun old chapel.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Ercé 09:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lun Fähre nach Rab.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 Lmbuga 13:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Steindy 13:31, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 11 March 2022 (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:
Church Saint Jerome, Lun, Croatia.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support. Useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 15:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment The other image in the category File:Crkvaulunu.jpg is much more broadly used, and understandably so: it has better lighting, framing (from the ground) and context (info display is not empty). A really good framing is at Getty images -ELEKHH^T 14:09, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
•  Question is the scope broad enough? the VI guidelines state "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 is a small church with no Wikipedia article, and only two images on Commons. --ELEKHH^T 14:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
• Dear Elekhh, thanks for your interest. The second image in that category is to a great extent obscured by bushes and that info plate is not at all readable, and unimportant anyway. The image is a very poorly described, and where you recognize the better lighting is quite doubtful to me, too. The other image you mention, is not a Wikimedia image, hence it does nor play a role here at all. Besides, it is tilted and distorted. As far as the importance is concerned, you may not have recognized the link to the history of that church. Its history does not make it a cathedral, but being the only one within a range of quite a few kilometers, it is important for that part of the island. Besides, many of "valued" churches, if not the majority, don't have an own wiki article. Regards --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:07, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

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

review

•  Best in Scope, useful and used, beautiful colors -- Spurzem (talk) 19:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lun Olivenbäume 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. --Steindy 09:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lun olive tree 1600 years trunc.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Steindy 09:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lun Olivenbaum 2000 Stamm.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Steindy 09:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 12 March 2022 (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:
Taxi boat 15NV from Lun, Croatia to the island of Rab..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope, beautiful image, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 14:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Olive tree (Olea europaea), c. 2000 years old, in nature reserve Olive-Gardens, Lun, Croatia..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support. Beautiful and useful -- Spurzem (talk) 19:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Usefull --Ercé (talk) 09:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 21:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Olive tree (Olea europaea), c. 1600 years old, in nature reserve Olive-Gardens, Lun, Croatia..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support. Wonderful tree and useful image -- Spurzem (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 21:03, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lun wayside shrine 1863.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Can you lighten the shadows on the right half to bring out some details? --Tagooty 09:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC) @Tagooty:  Done New shot uploaded with better lighting. --Palauenc05 17:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)  Support Much improved, thank you. --Tagooty 02:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lun olive tree in the wind.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Jakubhal 19:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zadar Symphony MMSI 238559440.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality, but light to the church not really iompressive --Michielverbeek 19:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC) --Michielverbeek 19:36, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 14 March 2022 (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 shrine (1863) in Lun, Croatia.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:09, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2022 (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:
Passenger ship "Symphony" (IMO: 9955454).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support The only in scope and useful -- Spurzem (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment The description needs an IMO number. See the relevant Wikidata entry where I have researched it. Martinvl (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:21, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rakitnik Betrothal of Mary Church, Municipality of Postojna, Slovenia.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 --Matutinho 19:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Raubling-Großholzhausen Mariensäule.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 --Matutinho 19:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 17 March 2022 (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:
South view of Metajna, Croatia..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 16:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:22, 18 March 2022 (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:
Betrothal of Mary Church in Rakitnik, Slovenia..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope, beautiful, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 18:09, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was 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 Mary's column in Raubling-Großholzhausen, Germany..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope and useful -- Spurzem (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 23:54, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zubovici Insel Pag.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Steindy 14:02, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zadar Porta di Terraferma.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 20:10, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2022 (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:
Zubovići on the island of Pag, Croatia (east view)..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 10:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Excellent framing capturing topography, relation to shore and the major landmark. Also good lighting and good quality. --ELEKHH^T 08:51, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:20, 21 March 2022 (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:
Porta terraferma and Maritime High School in Zadar, Croatia..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 13:31, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lun Olivenbaum Olive Gardens.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Nefronus 10:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lun Olivenbaum 2000 Stamm (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. --Nefronus 10:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 22 March 2022 (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:
Petar Zoranić Square in Zadar, Croatia (southeast view)..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support. Good and useful -- Spurzem (talk) 18:49, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:19, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2022 (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:
Roman spolia in the foundation of Church of St Donatus in Zadar, Croatia..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Best in Scope. Very good image, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 10:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zadar Petra Zoranica Platz Säule.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zadar Silen-Stele.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Steindy 11:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 25 March 2022 (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:
Roman stele with a relief of a mask of Silenus in Roman forum in Zadar (Croatia).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Very good and useful -- Spurzem (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 16:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

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

review

•  Best in Scope, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 17:54, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kirchberg Sankt Michael 4 Eisenglocken.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Steindy 21:11, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zadar Sign of cultural heritage monument.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Steindy 15:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 28 March 2022 (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:
Four steel church bells, removed from St. Michael Church in Kirchberg, to be replaced by bronze bells..
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Support Useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 12:23, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment Why should the old bells that are no longer there, be considered valuable to Commons rather than the new ones? Why are the bells notable rather than the exterior of the church itself which is the linked category? --GRDN711 (talk) 01:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment That's part of the history of that church. The old bells are at least as important as the new ones, and it was a rare occasion to have the chance to take a picture of them. These bells were cast of iron in 1949, because after the war no precious metal was available. The original medieval bronze bells had been taken away by the Nazis in 1942. In general, the history of bells is an important aspect of the history of every church, this one, by the way, is listed as a cultural heritage monument. --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Only in scope and useful -- Spurzem (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
•  Question The sign doesn't seem specific to Zadar, so whyh reduce the scope to one city? - ELEKHH^T 10:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment That's where I saw it. --Palauenc05 (talk) 11:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• Sure, but that doesn't answer the question. The sign seems to be used nationally (example from Split). --ELEKHH^T 11:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 14:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

--VICBot2 (talk) 00:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)