User talk:Scotch Mist/QI Archive01

Userboxes

Scotch Mist Quality Images
This user has uploaded 524 quality images to Wikimedia Commons.

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Great Theatre Poznan.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK. --Mattbuck 16:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 12:19, 2 June 2012‎ (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cieszyn Cemetery 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Red fringes (see the fonts) and chromatic noise, both fixable. --Cccefalon 10:04, 26 September 2015 (UTC)  Done@Cccefalon: Corrected, thanks for review!--Scotch Mist 10:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC) Ok now --Cccefalon 15:33, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gdow Cemetery 12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Ok --Poco a poco 07:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment was added by 109.150.73.164 (talk) 09:08, 07 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gdow Cemetery 12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Ok --Poco a poco 07:25, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Stalmach Statue.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments QI -- Spurzem 09:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Archangel Michael - Brody.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 23:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Archangel Raphael - Brody.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gdow Cemetery 01.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 QI for me. --C messier 16:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dzok Memorial.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 21:07, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Szczepanski Square 12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice, but please reduce the (color) noise in the dark areas. --Uoaei1 19:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)  Comment Are you referring to the edge of the banister in the stairwell on the bottom left-hand corner of the photo, and if so, do you think I should remove this? --Scotch Mist 22:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC) I mean all the dark surrounding of the window. See note --Uoaei1 17:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC) Done Thank you for your helpful input and for taking the time to annotate the original image as further advice! --Scotch Mist 20:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC)  Support --Uoaei1 17:49, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Szczepanski Square 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. Although I'm tempted to say that some parts are too dark --Moroder 20:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Szczepanski Square 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 18:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)  Comment Inadvertently removed nomination re-inserted! --Scotch Mist 14:01, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cieszyn Buildings 22.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Looks as if there is already a small cushion distortion in the image. --Dirtsc 21:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)  Comment Appreciate your review but not sure whether it is desirable to attempt to correct for this "effect" given that not all aspects of the façade are perfectly square in practice (as seen from other images) - if you think a correction is feasible do you have a view as to how this might be achieved? --Scotch Mist 06:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)  Comment You are of course right, that not all parts of the building are square, but in some of your images they look curved. And if you take a look at File:Cieszyn Buildings 18.jpg the wall is in fact straight. I made two new versions for this image and for File:Cieszyn Buildings 19.jpg, please take a look at them and compare them to your last versions, I think you will see my point. The problem here is in my opinion the distortion of the camera lens (especially at low focal length) that should be corrected by your software. With mine it was a matter of a minute to get rid of the cushion distortion, though I had to download a new correction file. If you like the new version and accept it, I could promote the nominated image. Greetings, --Dirtsc 17:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)  Comment Greatly appreciate you taking the time to improve this image which I am glad to accept. As I could not see an easy way to correct for the "cushion distortion" you identified can I ask what software/tool you used to make the perspective correction? --Scotch Mist 18:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)  Support then. ;-) You'll find more on your discussion page soon... --Dirtsc 14:03, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Szczepanski Square 10.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Olomouc 29.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. Quite impressive! --Michael Barera 02:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Olomouc 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Michael Barera 02:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Olomouc 38.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 22:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Olomouc 11.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good but the JPEG quality could be a little bit better. The sky looks a little bit posterized. --Code 06:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! St Wenceslas Olomouc 11.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Ok for me, even when the composition is not perfect. --Hubertl 09:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cieszyn Buildings 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 13:42, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kromeriz 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kromeriz 08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Jacek Halicki 11:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kromeriz 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Olomouc 08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Medium69 16:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Brno View 15.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Brno View 93.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice clear colors --Daniel Case 04:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Telc 16.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  CommentPlease check your image. It's tilted CW. --XRay 07:08, 6 January 2016 (UTC)  Comment Thank you for your review. Have rotated image CCW and uploaded new file.--Scotch Mist 08:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)  Support Sharpness could be better, but IMO OK for QI. --XRay 08:50, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Telc 15.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Telc 17.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Now fine. --Hasenläufer 09:54, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Telc 19.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good composition, but it might have been sharper (ISO400 is quiet high and it it looks a bit noisy) - however a Q1photo --Michielverbeek 07:35, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bouzov 020.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Hasenläufer 12:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Brno View 44.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Tsungam 08:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Telc 20.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cesky Krumlov 25.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Bgag 14:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Uherske 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Uoaei1 16:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cesky Krumlov 73.JPG, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --F. Riedelio 08:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gdow Cemetery 45.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Zcebeci 13:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gdow Cemetery 52.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. Liiked like it could be leaning, but the central cross is totally straight. --W.carter 19:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krakow 2016 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Yann 11:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krakow 2016 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Yann 11:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Brzeg Castle 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 Looks OK to me --A.Savin 16:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jicin 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Milseburg 20:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kowary - Wysoka Laka 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments The right side of the picture is leaning in, could you correct this, please? BTW, a lower ISO perhaps would have been better, unless there's a special reason for it... --Basotxerri 10:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)  Done: Thank you for your advice - perspective has been adjusted --Scotch Mist 21:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC) OK now! --Basotxerri 21:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vola Storks 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 This one is sharp enough. --C messier 15:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gdow Cemetery 21.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Moroder 07:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Otmuchow 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality, but I had to extend the categorization. --Ajepbah 08:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jicin 08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --C messier 13:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spissky Hrhov 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kosice 44.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Quality high enough for a Q1photo --Michielverbeek 22:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Medzilaborce - Orthodox Church 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Cvmontuy 13:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kosice 46.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kosice 57.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Just ok --Poco a poco 18:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sanok 13.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 20:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Medzilaborce - Orthodox Church 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 20:40, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Brzeg Castle 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kowary - Wysoka Laka 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Karpacz 43.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 --Christian Ferrer 17:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Karpacz 44.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments GQ --Palauenc05 18:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nysa 10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Could be sharper, but OK --Daniel Case 05:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ksiaz Castle 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Moroder 09:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zamosc 171.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 08:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kosice 43.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 It needs perspective correction. --Palauenc05 15:47, 16 December 2016 (UTC)  Done: Thank you for your advice - have made perspective adjustment --Scotch Mist 10:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)  Comment Sorry to bother you again, but now it's tiltet ccw. --Palauenc05 16:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)  Done: My mistake - too quick to replace earlier version - hopefully latest upload meets QI criteria --Scotch Mist 07:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)  Support GQ --Palauenc05 10:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Baranow Sandomierski Castle 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 --The Photographer 17:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Baranow Sandomierski Castle 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 --The Photographer 17:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Baranow Sandomierski Castle 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Excellent DoF --The Photographer 17:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nowy Wisnicz Castle 18.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 --The Photographer 17:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eagles Nests Trail 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Zcebeci 10:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eagles Nests Trail 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 10:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eagles Nests Trail 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 10:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eagles Nests Trail 11.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 10:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eagles Nests Trail 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 10:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eagles Nests Trail 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Zcebeci 10:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eagles Nests Trail 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 10:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eagles Nests Trail 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 10:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eagles Nests Trail 11.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 10:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eagles Nests Trail 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 10:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eagles Nests Trail 14.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eagles Nests Trail 29.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 07:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kazimierz Dolny 22.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 08:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eagles Nests Trail 23.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eagles Nests Trail 32.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. Sharpness is not outstanding, but acceptable. Oversharpening would be worse. Very nice composition. --Smial 13:00, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eagles Nests Trail 34.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Zcebeci 11:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eagles Nests Trail 13.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good composition, but noisy. I think a weak  Support --Michielverbeek 07:23, 21 December 2016 (UTC)  Comment Have now uploaded a 'de-noised image' but please advise if you do not view this as improved and I will revert - thank you for your feedback and support. --Scotch Mist 14:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eagles Nests Trail 12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krakow 2016 66.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 10:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Baranow Sandomierski Castle 15.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments jpg artifacts in shadow --The Photographer 17:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)  Comment Thank you for your comment - do you know of any way to resolve this issue other than retaking the photograph? --Scotch Mist 08:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC) Hi Scotch, you could apply a selective noise reduction using Neat Image or Photoshop --The Photographer 10:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)  Comment Thank you for your advice - think I will need to withdraw this image until my editing skills are more advanced! --Scotch Mist 11:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)  Comment Hi @Scotch Mist: I uploaded another version fixing the problems with Neat Image, however, I rollbacked my version, please feel free to let it like the last version if you want --The Photographer 13:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)  Comment Have reverted to the version you transformed and have removed my withdrawal from QIC - thank you for your time and work on this which has greatly improved the portions of the image in shadow!--Scotch Mist 15:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC) You are welcome :) , now we need another opinion --The Photographer 16:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)  Support It's fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 17:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lublin 17.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 16:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eagles Nests Trail 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 11:26, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eagles Nests Trail 33.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments The castle has good sharpness. You might check to make sure the spots, such as a dark one in a cloud, are all really in the picture; I'm assuming they are, but you'd know better. -- Ikan Kekek 10:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)  Comment Not certain myself so have removed and uploaded new version - please advise should you wish me to revert - thanks for your advice and support. --Scotch Mist 13:04, 23 December 2016 (UTC)  Comment Well, I like the revised version better, though you didn't need to remove spots that were obviously birds, like the one just to the right of the low vertical element that's to the right of the building proper, if you know what I mean. -- Ikan Kekek 07:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eagles Nests Trail 20.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Much better, QI now --Poco a poco 12:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Auschwitz I-34.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Basotxerri 15:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kosice 38.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 18:43, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kosice 34.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I find the lack of symmetry a bit irritating (unbalanced) but good enough for QI I guess --Poco a poco 12:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cieszyn Matter Tomb V.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments OK. --A.Savin 11:46, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bielska 34 Cieszyn III.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Ok --Uoaei1 22:32, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gdow Church 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 10:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krakow 2016 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 --The Photographer 10:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krakow 2016 08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Quite a striking plaque. Focus isn't great, but just about good enough; it would hardly amaze me if others disagreed with promoting this and we end up arguing it out at Consensual Review. -- Ikan Kekek 07:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bochnia 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good composition, it might have been a bit sharper and less noisy (I am able to read: Ul. Kynck), so a week support --Michielverbeek 07:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bochnia 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments The dark shadows are a bit disturbing, but nevertheless QI to me. --Cayambe 18:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Niepolomice 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Basotxerri 09:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Niepolomice 08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 07:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Niepolomice 15.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 07:30, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pakoszow Palace 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments There is a spot in the sky on the left, could you remove it, please? --Basotxerri 09:21, 30 December 2016 (UTC)  Done Thank you for your review - spot removed. --Scotch Mist 12:29, 30 December 2016 (UTC) Good quality. --Basotxerri 14:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Hradec Kralove 10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Noise on shadows, but OK to go. --A.Savin 15:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bochnia 01 - Casimir III Statue.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pakoszow Palace 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 04:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krakow 2016 39.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 10:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sanok 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Livioandronico2013 23:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gdow Shrine 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 14:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gdow Church 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 14:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Zaleszany Cemetery 11.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gdow Town Hall 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice and clean --Daniel Case 05:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Eagles Nests Trail 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. -- Johann Jaritz 11:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Brzeg Castle 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice photo, but please explain the slant. Should the ground be level and the pillars, vertical? -- Ikan Kekek 17:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)  Comment The base pillars are tapered not vertical (as evidenced from other photos) and because this photo is taken at an angle to keep the sculpture 'clear' of the 'backdrop' this gives an impression of a slanted cloister floor which I thought it best to retain rather than cause the view of the sculpture to be compromised. --Scotch Mist 20:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC) Thanks for the explanation. I'll accept your argument, but someone else might not. -- Ikan Kekek 00:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gdow Cemetery 30.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Basotxerri 17:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krakow 2016 64.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 19:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kazimierz Dolny 12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments A nice composition, but I would have used a lower ISO-value to get more sharpness and less noise --Michielverbeek 21:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krakow 2016 20.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 22:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rakowicki 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Poco a poco 22:04, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rakowicki 19.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good enough for me. -- Ikan Kekek 22:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krakow 2016 35.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Uoaei1 06:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Niepolomice 09 - Castle Canon.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Swidnica 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Lucasbosch 09:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Swidnica 12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 08:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Adrspach 38.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 16:31, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Adrspach 41.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments GQ --Palauenc05 13:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Adrspach 40.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments The surface of the rock looks really strange, like some agressive noise reduction has been applied. Any idea where this comes from? W.carter 16:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)  Comment Can see what you are referencing but as this 'strange effect' appears to be a characteristic of these rocks across many photos I presume it is sourced in geology and weathering, not aggressive noise reduction, perhaps because there is a lot of limestone within these 'sandstone formations'. --Scotch Mist 19:59, 27 January 2017 (UTC) Thanks for explaining, I had to ask since it looked really weird. :) Good quality. --W.carter 16:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vola Storks 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 21:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vola Storks 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 21:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krakow 2016 48.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Ermell 14:31, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Spisske Podhradie 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Moroder 16:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krakow 2016 65.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Ok now --Poco a poco 21:48, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gdow Cemetery 60.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 05:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gdow Cemetery 68.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 for me. --Rbrechko 15:39, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gdow Cemetery 65.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --MB-one 15:39, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gdow Cemetery 70.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Musicaline 11:48, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Niegowić Kościół - John Paul II - 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Seven Pandas 21:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Niegowić Kościół - John Paul II - 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 05:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Angel of Vengeance at Rakowicki II.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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.--Horst J. Meuter 17:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Angel of Vengeance at Rakowicki III.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Horst J. Meuter 17:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rakowicki 21.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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.--Horst J. Meuter 17:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rakowicki 22.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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.--Horst J. Meuter 17:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rakowicki 24.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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.--Horst J. Meuter 17:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Niegowić Kościół - John Paul II - 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Looks mostly OK but I think the right side should be cropped.--Peulle 19:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC) Thank you for your review - image re-cropped.  Done --Scotch Mist 07:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jagiellonian University 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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.--Horst J. Meuter 16:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jagiellonian University 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality -- Spurzem 14:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jagiellonian University 16.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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.--Horst J. Meuter 15:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jagiellonian University 18.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality -- Spurzem 14:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jagiellonian University 24.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. -- MJJR 16:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jagiellonian University 26.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 16:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krakow 2018 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Tilted, see door --Poco a poco 16:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)  Done Thank you for your review - have adjusted perspective\tilt --Scotch Mist 18:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)  Support Better --Poco a poco 18:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krakow 2018 16.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 11:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krakow 2018 41.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 11:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kraków - Słowacki Theatre 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Cayambe 07:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jagiellonian University 25.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bochnia Cemetery Oracka 08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 19:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gdów Cemetery 095 - Eleonora Fihauser Plaque I.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 19:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gdów Cemetery 093 - Ludwik Kusionowicz Plaque I.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Smial 10:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gdów Cemetery 091 - Sylwester Kusionowicz III.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ermell 12:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gdów Cemetery 099 - Sylwester Kusionowicz IV.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 06:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Slowacki Theatre 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. I had the delight of staying next to this magnificent building a couple of years ago during a holiday in Poland. It's a fine sructure not easy to forget. --Blood Red Sandman 23:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kraków - Słowacki Theatre 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. I had the delight of staying next to this magnificent building a couple of years ago during a holiday in Poland. It's a fine sructure not easy to forget. --Blood Red Sandman 23:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krakow 2018 43.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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, although the perspective is not my favourite and I could understand if another user were to object to it. --Blood Red Sandman 23:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sosnowiec Głowny XII.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 20:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sosnowiec Głowny XIII.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 18:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krakow 2018 13.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gliwice - Dworzec Kolejowy VI.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments ccw tilt --Poco a poco 18:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)  Done Addressed slight tilt on vertical beam hangers --Scotch Mist 07:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 10:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kraków - Artur Grottger II.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Slight ccw tilt --Poco a poco 18:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC) Thank you for commenting but am struggling to find significant 'tilt' that I should rectify - perhaps you can assist? --Scotch Mist 06:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)  Support You may be right in regards to "significant", QI --Poco a poco 10:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krakow 2018 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Sharpness could be better and there is a lot of color noise. --XRay 06:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Thank you for your comment - I thought I had addressed these issues but am not seeing the last image I uploaded even after 'purging' - are you able to compare the last two images I uploaded and advise? --Scotch Mist 07:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Your image uploaded at July 1st has still color noise. And the sharpness should be better. IMO the issue color noise is really important. --XRay 08:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Forgive me if I am going 'colour blind' but can you point to where on the image this is most significant? --Scotch Mist 11:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC) I've added two notes to your image. --XRay 13:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC) Thank you for your helpful notes - have reduced colour saturation but fear I may be fighting a losing battle!:) --Scotch Mist 16:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)  Support It's better, but there are still (minor) issues. I think I can accept it, but it is only a very weak promotion. --XRay 06:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gdów Cemetery 106 - Kusionowicz et Fihauser Plaques Dedication III.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ermell 12:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alfons Matter Family Tomb in Cieszyn.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments A bit soft but good enough --PantheraLeo1359531 17:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wadowice - Basilica E.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 11:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gliwice - Dworzec Kolejowy V.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Please check the verticals. --Ermell 20:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)  Done Addressed slight tilt on vertical beam hangers --Scotch Mist 06:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Ermell 12:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gdów Cemetery 098 - Kusionowicz et Fihauser Plaques III.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments The WB should be warmer IMO. --Ermell 12:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)  Done @Ermell: Thank you for your comment - have altered the white balance but not sure it has produced a 'warmer effect'? --Scotch Mist 07:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Ermell 12:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kraków - Florian Gate Relief.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. IMHO a little bit overexposed – some of the stones don’t show much structure —, but IMHO still OK. --Aristeas 10:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Alfons Matter Tomb Angel.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Underexposed. --Ermell 12:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)  Done Thank you for your comment - have 'enhanced exposure' --Scotch Mist 13:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Ermell 21:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kraków - Kościół Karmelitów II.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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, I would just suggest to remove two dust spots – see image notes --Aristeas 10:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)  Done Thank you for your helpful notes - dust spots removed! --Scotch Mist 12:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)  Support Thank you! Good quality. --Aristeas 11:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kraków - Magistrate's Building.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 18:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kraków - Tyszkiewicz Palace 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Blood Red Sandman 21:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kraków - Kościół Piotra i Pawła.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Blood Red Sandman 21:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kraków - Stadnicki Palace 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Blood Red Sandman 21:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gdów Cemetery 115 - Adam Grażyński.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. I guess the sculpture now is seen in its full value. Thanks --Moroder 04:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kraków - Kościół Pijarów II.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Please, crop it properly. --Andrew J.Kurbiko 07:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Thank you for your comment but am not sure what you mean by "properly" - can you please provide more specific advice on full size image? --Scotch Mist 09:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC) See the lower right corner (a white triangle). Otherwise good quality. --ArildV 08:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC) @ArildV: Are you referring to the adjacent building overhang that was 'removed' with the perspective correction on 14 July or is there something else I am not seeing here (and perhaps you can identify with an annotation\note? --Scotch Mist 16:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC) See images note. Lower right corner. --ArildV 19:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)  Done @ArildV: Thank you - don't know how I missed this, perhaps its time to have my eyes checked out!:) --Scotch Mist 06:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --ArildV 09:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sosnowiec Głowny V.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. At first I thought theremight be some glare but on looking properly it seems the upper plaque simply looks like that. --Blood Red Sandman 18:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bochnia Cemetery Oracka 13.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Moroder 03:55, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bochnia Cemetery Oracka 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Birštonas 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 14:54, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Klaipėda 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 14:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trakai Island 11.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ermell 05:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trakai Island 13.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Ermell 05:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trakai Island 14.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 15:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trakai Island 15.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 15:23, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Labanoras 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Zcebeci 07:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trakai Island 17.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 12:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trakai Island 18.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 12:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trakai Island 25.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 12:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trakai Island 30.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 12:07, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Labanoras 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments A house or window related category would be necessary IMHO --Poco a poco 20:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)  Done Thank you for your advice! --Scotch Mist 06:19, 8 August 2020 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Palūšė 16.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Same here, please, at least one boat-related category and maybe also a wet painted category would be nice --Poco a poco 20:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)  Done Have added further categories that seem most appropriate! --Scotch Mist 06:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 07:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kaunas Landmarks 12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 08:38, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kaunas Landmarks 13.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Jakubhal 09:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilnius Landmarks 30.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 05:36, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilnius Landmarks 63.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 05:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilnius Landmarks 89.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 05:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilnius Landmarks 109.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 05:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilnius Landmarks 137.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Stepro 13:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilnius Landmarks 165.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 It's on the edge, but imho barely sharp enough. --Stepro 09:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Vilnius Landmarks 167.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilnius Landmarks 167.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

File:Vilnius Landmarks 168.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilnius Landmarks 168.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:20, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trakai Island 16.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 QI. The noise on the sky is visible, but acceptable. --Dmitry Ivanov 18:30, 11 August 2020 (UTC).

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilnius Landmarks 171.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 05:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilnius Landmarks 172.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Stepro 13:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Adam Mickiewicz Vilnius 15.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Stepro 13:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilnius Landmarks 42.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 21:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilnius Cathedral 19.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Stepro 13:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilnius Landmarks 162.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 07:37, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trakai Island 24.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Moroder 20:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilnius Cathedral 14.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Dust spot in the top middle --Poco a poco 19:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)  Done Thank you for taking the time to review. --Scotch Mist 10:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilnius Cathedral 16.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Dust spot on the top right --Poco a poco 19:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)  Done Thank you - your eyesight is obviously much better than mine! --Scotch Mist 10:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilnius Landmarks 170.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Sharpness is not the best and there are some dust spots --Poco a poco 19:56, 11 August 2020 (UTC)  Done Thank you for your review - have removed dusts spots which I hadn't noticed but don't think I can effectively improve the 'sharpness' ... --Scotch Mist 06:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC) One spot is left. Regarding the sharpness, what about applying a sharpening mask without increase the noise of the sky? --Poco a poco 19:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)  Done Thank you again - hopefully all dust spots now removed but am not sure my skills are sufficient to have produced the optimum sharpening! --Scotch Mist 10:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC) I found another dust spot. The sharpening has helped but I'd have gone a bit further --Poco a poco 17:07, 14 August 2020 (UTC)  Done Sharpened further! --Scotch Mist 06:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)  Support Now :) --Poco a poco 07:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilnius Cathedral 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Moroder 17:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trakai Island 32.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Moroder 09:03, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:35, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilnius Landmarks 144.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Oppose imho too distorted --Stepro 09:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC) @Stepro: Would you recommend attempting a perspective adjustment? --Scotch Mist 10:35, 11 August 2020 (UTC) I wouldn't try it. Please don't get me wrong: Maybe the pic is from the ground not better to take, sometimes it's just impossible to produce a perfect photo. --Stepro 13:57, 12 August 2020 (UTC) @Stepro: Have adjusted perspective (can revert if necessary) - does this work? --Scotch Mist 15:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC) Perhaps others can comment on whether the 'perspective adjustment' works or not? --Scotch Mist 06:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)  Support I think it worked much better than I've expected. --Stepro 07:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lithuanian National Museum 16.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--Famberhorst 17:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lithuanian National Museum 18.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--Famberhorst 17:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilnius Sts Peter et Paul Church 14.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 06:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilnius Sts Peter et Paul Church 22.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 06:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilnius Cathedral 25.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Palūšė 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilnius University 17.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality.--Famberhorst 05:59, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilnius University 18.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --RockyMasum 09:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lithuanian National Museum 19.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments There is a syntax error in the file description (one opening squared bracket too much). I like the way, you not only show the painting, but also the structure of it's surface. Nonetheless, I think there was a paste-and-copy error by writing it's description, as there is no context with the 'Rebel of 1831'. --PtrQs 23:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)  Done Thanks for noting my 'omissions' - have resolved 'syntax error' and inserted further relevant information!:) --Scotch Mist 14:59, 20 August 2020 (UTC) Good Quality --PtrQs 01:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilnius Landmarks 95.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Moroder 13:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lithuanian National Museum 23.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilnius Sts Peter et Paul Church 19.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vilnius University 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Technically OK, although I 'm not sure about the inclusion of the books (as copyrighted elements). Also needs some information about the fresco in the description. --C messier 16:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC)  Done @C messier: Have added fresco information but it had not occurred to me that books in 'background' in a bookshop might infringe copyright - do you think it necessary to 'blur' the more prominent books? --Scotch Mist 07:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC) I think adding a {{De minimis}} tag aknowledgening that the books are copyrighted should suffice, if cropping them isn't an option. --C messier 18:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)  Done Thanks for the advice which I have followed in preference to cropping the books from the image --Scotch Mist 21:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)  Support OK --C messier 18:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bauska Castle 11.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality --Michielverbeek 04:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:35, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bauska Castle 10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Tournasol7 05:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bauska Castle 14.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Daugavpils Fortress 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Tagooty 15:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jelgava 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 05:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bauska Castle 12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 Just ok in terms of sharpness, some additional sharpening would help --Poco a poco 09:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)  Done Thank you for your feedback - have slightly sharpened image --Scotch Mist 08:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jelgava Churches 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 09:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jelgava Churches 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 09:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jelgava 16.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 06:19, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jelgava Churches 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 06:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jūrmala - Ķemeri 14.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 09:45, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jelgava 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 17:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Riga Landmarks 93.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 07:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Riga Landmarks 94.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 07:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Riga Landmarks 96.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 Just ok --Poco a poco 11:13, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Riga Landmarks 100.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 07:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jūrmala - Ķemeri 15.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I'd expect a cat about the subject --Poco a poco 09:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)  Done You are correct - my mistake! --Scotch Mist 16:21, 18 September 2020 (UTC)  Support I was rather thinking about fences, but ok, I added it myself --Poco a poco 11:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jelgava Churches 11.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Moroder 01:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Riga Landmarks 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 09:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Riga Landmarks 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 09:34, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Riga Landmarks 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 09:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Riga Landmarks 11.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --ArildV 10:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jelgava 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Moroder 10:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jelgava 15.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --MB-one 12:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Freedom Monument Latvia 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Isiwal 07:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Freedom Monument Latvia 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Isiwal 07:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Freedom Monument Latvia 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 05:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Freedom Monument Latvia 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --ArildV 06:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

File:Freedom Monument Latvia 08.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Freedom Monument Latvia 08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 10:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Riga Landmarks 57.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Riga Landmarks 99.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Riga Landmarks 56.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Freedom Monument Latvia 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Riga Landmarks 10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Vincent60030 09:05, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Riga Landmarks 53.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Moroder 05:35, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Freedom Monument Latvia 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Moroder 12:16, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Riga Landmarks 98.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Freedom Monument Latvia 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 05:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Riga Landmarks 71.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 07:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Riga Landmarks 79.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 07:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Riga Landmarks 25.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Isiwal 07:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Riga Landmarks 37.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --ArildV 10:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Riga Landmarks 107.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Isiwal 07:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Art Nouveau Riga 17.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:35, 9 October 2020 (UTC)  Comment Sharpness is a little questionable again, but I won't oppose and just wanted to compliment you on your very good sense of composition. If you could take a photo like this and make it very sharp (and in more even light), it could possibly be a good FP nominee. -- Ikan Kekek 11:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC) @Ikan Kekek: Thank you for your kind comment - have attempted to sharpen and improve image white balance --Scotch Mist 19:01, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Art Nouveau Riga 31.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Riga Landmarks 67.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Art Nouveau Riga 08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Augustgeyler 20:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Freedom Monument Latvia 10.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Freedom Monument Latvia 10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Art Nouveau Riga 46.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Do you think it is possible to sharpen it a bit? --Augustgeyler 20:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)  Done Thank you for your review - have attempted sharpening! --Scotch Mist 11:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)  Support  Weak support It improved. --Augustgeyler 22:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Art Nouveau Riga 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Moroder 07:53, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rundāle Palace 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rundāle Palace 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rundāle Palace 09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 21:48, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rundāle Palace 23.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Augustgeyler 07:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rundāle Palace 27.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 08:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ventspils 21.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. The shadows are a little bit too dark. Please fix it if possible. --XRay 06:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC) Done --Scotch Mist 07:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ventspils 20.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 06:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ventspils 19.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Moroder 12:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Orthodox Cathedral Riga 11.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Moroder 05:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rundāle Palace 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Moroder 06:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Pärnu 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tallinn Landmarks 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments The top is very tight. But good quality for me.--Famberhorst 07:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tallinn Landmarks 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 13:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tallinn Landmarks 08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 13:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tallinn Landmarks 17.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 17:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tallinn Landmarks 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments You need to improve the top crop and apply a perspective correction (buildings are leaning out) --Poco a poco 09:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)  Done Thanks for your review - see new upload ... --Scotch Mist 11:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 12:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tallinn Landmarks 18.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Vengolis 07:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tallinn Landmarks 33.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Vengolis 07:03, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tallinn Landmarks 37.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 07:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tallinn Landmarks 40.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Vengolis 07:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tallinn Landmarks 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tallinn Landmarks 07D.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments If the subject of the image is the cathedral I find this POV/crop unfortunate --Poco a poco 13:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Thank you for your review - the contrast between the bright city building and the dark church steeple seemed interesting:!) --Scotch Mist 14:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC) Then the description in the nomination / page description isn't correct. --Poco a poco 09:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)  Done @Poco a poco: I take your point!:) --Scotch Mist 16:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)  Support Ok, but I promote without being convinced though --Poco a poco 16:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tallinn Landmarks 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tallinn Landmarks 68.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 07:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tallinn Landmarks 07B.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 08:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tallinn Landmarks 13.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tallinn Landmarks 15.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:49, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tallinn Landmarks 22.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tallinn Landmarks 93.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 06:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tallinn Landmarks 98.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Podzemnik 06:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tallinn Landmarks 101.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 07:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tallinn Landmarks 105.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Lot of chroma noise throughout. --Tagooty 09:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Tagooty Am not sure what you are referring to as "chroma noise" (there are perspex plates fixed to the cross and the column with air pollution 'debris' across surfaces)? Please advise or identify on image - thank you --Scotch Mist 11:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC) The entire sky has reddish pixels mixed with the blue. The bottoms of the arms of the cross (presumably no perspex) has chroma noise. The thin strip at the very top, above the perspex, has noise. --Tagooty 13:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Tagooty Am not seeing the reddish pixels in the sky nor on the bottoms of the arms of the cross, which do indeed also have plates riveted to them, but am seeing what I presume to be an orange/brown rust from the metal of the sculpture - however have lightened and reduced the red content of the image to address your concerns!:) --Scotch Mist 15:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Lightening has not improved much. Comparing the current version with the version 2, the sky has changed from smooth to having a grainy texture. Also, compare with the sky in your other images taken at the same time -- they have a smooth sky. The noise is due to the sharpening applied on v2. I suggest that you revert to v2, and apply PC without sharpening -- I would support this. --Tagooty 03:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC)  Done --Scotch Mist 16:31, 20 November 2020 (UTC)  Support QI to me --Tagooty 01:50, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tallinn Landmarks 07C.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Looks too dark and the aspect ratio needs also a fix --Poco a poco 08:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)  Done Thank you for your review - have uploaded new lightened and cropped image --Scotch Mist 10:19, 17 November 2020 (UTC) An improvement definitely, but the aspect ratio is still an issue. I don't talk about the crop but about the relation height/width. Without changing the crop the image should be enlarged in the vertical axis so that the domes look more realistic, right now they look to flat --Poco a poco 15:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)  Done @Poco a poco: Adjusted vertical scaling as far as seemed consistent with realism!:) --Scotch Mist 11:04, 19 November 2020 (UTC)  Support Looking better --Poco a poco 19:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tallinn Landmarks 16.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Moroder 03:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tallinn Landmarks 73.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I find the top crop unfortunate, fixable? --Poco a poco 08:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC) @Poco a poco: Thank you for your review - the sculptured relief above the door is actually quite extensive so to capture that in the photo, given the light conditions at the time, would have diminished the rest of the photo so what is presented is the best 'compromise' I can achieve!:) --Scotch Mist 09:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)  Support Ok --Poco a poco 12:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tallinn Landmarks 94.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tallinn Landmarks 102.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support OK. --C messier 17:23, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tallinn Landmarks 103 - Cross of Liberty Skyline.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Moroder 04:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tartu Landmarks 29.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 07:11, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tartu Landmarks 19.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 08:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Viljandi Landmarks 16.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tallinn Landmarks 95.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Noise should be reduced and sharpness added. Please check the bottom left corner. --Ermell 08:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)  Done @Ermell: Thank you for your review and pointer!:) --Scotch Mist 11:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Ermell 19:47, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Viljandi Landmarks 35.jpg & File:Viljandi Landmarks 42.jpg

Please don't send me mails about failures of QICbot, I'm not the operator. Please have a look to Commons_talk:Quality_images_candidates#Bot_didn't_finished_today. I think you'll find the answer. And please do not expect me to inform every user beyond that. Thank you. --XRay 💬 16:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tartu Landmarks 38.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Viljandi Landmarks 36.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Looks tilted / right side needs a perspective correction, dust spot --Poco a poco 11:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)  Done @Poco a poco: Thanks for your review and good spot - perspective adjusted --Scotch Mist 13:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC) You just confused me about the new version, are you sure that everything went well? the aspect ratio is completely different --Poco a poco 18:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)  Done @Poco a poco: Have looked again and you are correct - have removed previous comment and re-adjusted perspective --Scotch Mist 12:23, 5 December 2020 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 13:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tallinn Landmarks 52.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Moroder 05:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Viljandi Landmarks 34.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Quality ok, but recommend longer exposion and lower ISO --PantheraLeo1359531 15:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Viljandi Landmarks 30.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Moroder 15:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Viljandi Landmarks 32.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Moroder 15:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

File:Tartu Landmarks 07.jpg

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tartu Landmarks 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Please try to understand me. I didn’t say minimal. I said that the description must be ‘’specific’’ to the object I of the photo. --Moroder 15:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tartu Landmarks 40.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments The sky is too dark, IMO. --Tournasol7 10:50, 10 December 2020 (UTC)  Done @Tournasol7: Have lightened image although see deeper blue skies 'up north'!:) --Scotch Mist 12:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)  Support Ok, thank you for your explain. Good enough for QI in my opinion. --Tournasol7 10:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trenčín 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trenčín 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 06:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trenčín 14.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:30, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trenčín 21.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:27, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trenčín Castle 18.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Augustgeyler 11:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trenčín Castle 49.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 tower --Michielverbeek 08:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trenčín Castle 58.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Augustgeyler 11:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trenčín 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 13:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trenčín Castle 29.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 13:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Banská Bystrica 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 13:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Medzilaborce - Andy Warhol 13.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 17:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trenčín Castle 53.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Moroder 05:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trenčín 28.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Moroder 01:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Trenčín Castle 14.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Havlickuv Brod 2021 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 14:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kutna Hora 2021 27.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 16:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kutna Hora 2021 35.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 16:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kutna Hora 2021 32.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Carsten Steger 11:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kutna Hora 2021 33.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 13:48, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kutna Hora 2021 50.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 02:24, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kutna Hora 2021 52.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Boaventuravinicius 12:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Old Town 2021 16.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Boaventuravinicius 12:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Havlickuv Brod 2021 03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 20:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Old Town 2021 17.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 11:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Old Town 2021 18.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 11:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Old Town 2021 19.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments It needs a better aspect ratio (please, stretch it in vertical direction) --Poco a poco 11:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)  Done, thanks for your advice --Scotch Mist 12:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 18:25, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Old Town 2021 28.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --FlocciNivis 19:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kutna Hora 2021 14.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Looks good but it needs a more specific category (paintings?) --Poco a poco 14:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)  Done, thanks for your advice --Scotch Mist 15:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 11:01, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Old Town 2021 31.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 10:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Old Town 2021 12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 10:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Old Town 2021 34.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --FlocciNivis 10:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Old Town 2021 30.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Velvet 08:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Town Hall Clock 2021 16.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 10:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Charles Bridge 2021 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Mike1979 Russia 09:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Charles Bridge 2021 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 10:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Charles Bridge 2021 11.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 15:06, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Old Town 2021 13.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments You have to do a little bit (different) PC here. I think you used the column for that, but it seems to be conic. IMO it's a better idea to use both church towers for that --FlocciNivis 10:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC) Thanks for your review - IMO the 'composition' is more interesting by including the top of the column and the 'plain' roof top but would be interested in other views! --Scotch Mist 09:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC) I have no issue with the composition. It can stay like this. But the towers are leaning and IMO they shouldn't --FlocciNivis 15:18, 18 January 2023 (UTC)  Done, further adjusted perspective --Scotch Mist 18:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)  Support Yep, that's what I meant :-) Thanks, good quality. --FlocciNivis 19:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Charles Bridge 2021 15.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 16:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Charles Bridge 2021 36.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 22:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Charles Bridge 2021 17.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 16:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Old Town 2021 35.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Awkward angle, what is the black item? an umbrella? it is very distracting --Poco a poco 10:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC) Good Question! There appears to be a pair of 'copper wings' protruding from the base of the statue and with only one 'wing' evident perhaps there is less-distraction from the details above and below! --Scotch Mist 10:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)  Support Indeed, it belongs to the sculpture --Poco a poco 16:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Charles Bridge 2021 16.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 09:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Charles Bridge 2021 19.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --FlocciNivis 09:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Charles Bridge 2021 20.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 09:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Charles Bridge 2021 24.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Rjcastillo 08:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Charles Bridge 2021 25.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Rjcastillo 08:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Charles Bridge 2021 26.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Rjcastillo 08:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Charles Bridge 2021 27.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --FlocciNivis 09:14, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Charles Bridge 2021 29.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Rjcastillo 08:16, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Charles Bridge 2021 12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments I like the composition, but in my opinion a few more pixels on the bottom would improve this image. Is this possible? --FlocciNivis 15:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)  Done Thank you for your review - does this newly-loaded image reflect the change you had in mind? --Scotch Mist 19:25, 19 January 2023 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --FlocciNivis 22:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Charles Bridge 2021 31.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 09:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Old Town 2021 41.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --DXR 12:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Old Town 2021 42.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 09:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Old Town 2021 43.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 10:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Charles Bridge 2021 22.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Too much chroma noise and need for an adjustment of aspect ratio --Poco a poco 15:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)  Done Adjusted aspect ratio and colour balance --Scotch Mist 17:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC) You went too far with the aspect ratio, now it looks the other way around --Poco a poco 20:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)  Done Have re-adjusted aspect ratio but think this is about as close as I can get with reference to other available photos! --Scotch Mist 17:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)  Support Not perfect but acceptable to me, thanks --Poco a poco 13:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kutna Hora 2021 20.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments The shadows should be raised to increase detail --MB-one 12:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)  Done Thanks for review - shadows raised. --Scotch Mist 13:55, 22 January 2023 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --MB-one 15:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Old Town 2021 46.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 10:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Melnik 2021 04.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Rjcastillo 13:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Ceska Lipa 2021 05.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 04:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kraków - Józef Piłsudski 06.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 10:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krakow 2022 02.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 10:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krakow Wyspianski Monument 2022 12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 12:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krakow 2022 15.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --FlocciNivis 09:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Charles Bridge 2021 14.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Quite strong shadows from the midday light but the statue looks nice. May I suggest cropping the left-hand side slightly to remove the bit of a lamp in the corner? --BigDom 19:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)  Done Thanks for your suggestion - image has been cropped accordingly! --Scotch Mist 10:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)  Support Looks good, happy to support. --BigDom 17:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krakow 2022 30.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 08:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gdow Cemetery 2022 35.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 08:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Niegowic 2022 08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 08:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Krakow 2016 22.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Jsamwrites 08:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Gdow Cemetery 2022 01.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Tagooty 02:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Niegowic 2022 07.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 13:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Prague Charles Bridge 2021 13.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

--QICbot (talk) 05:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Graz 2022-03.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 some categorization maintenance was necessary. --MB-one 09:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Graz 2022-11.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Halavar 09:45, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Graz 2022-22.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Question How strong was the applied perspective correction? --Augustgeyler 09:47, 5 April 2023 (UTC) @Augustgeyler: Perspective correction was minor and did not impact significantly on façade features --Scotch Mist 10:00, 5 April 2023 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Augustgeyler 15:21, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Graz 2022-24.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 10:55, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Graz 2022-29.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 16:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:37, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Graz 2022-38.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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., but crop is arguable. --Der Angemeldete 13:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Graz 2022-39.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 16:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Graz 2022-45.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Der Angemeldete 13:07, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Graz 2022-65.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 but please, don't overcategorize --Poco a poco 11:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-08.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 08:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-09.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Rjcastillo 06:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-10.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 06:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-11.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 06:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-12.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Rjcastillo 06:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-13.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 06:12, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Graz 2022-48.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Slightly too dark IMO. --Ermell 10:58, 8 April 2023 (UTC) @Ermell: : Thank you for your review - have adjusted white balance and lightened shadows. --Scotch Mist 14:52, 8 April 2023 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Ermell 19:04, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Graz 2022-35.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --FlocciNivis 08:33, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-26.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality. --XRay 08:19, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-28.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 13:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-31.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Halavar 10:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-37.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-40.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Halavar 17:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-44.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support Good quality.--Famberhorst 06:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-14.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Strong chroma noise/artifacts in darker areas --Poco a poco 13:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)  Done @Poco a poco: Thank you for your review - have addressed issue raised. --Scotch Mist 09:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 16:18, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-60.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Halavar 12:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-62.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Halavar 12:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-70.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Rjcastillo 19:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-76.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Rjcastillo 19:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-77.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Augustgeyler 06:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-46.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Peulle 07:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-94.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 05:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-95.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 05:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-98.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Tagooty 06:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-41.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Tagooty 05:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-103.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 09:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-104.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --SHB2000 06:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-105.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --SHB2000 06:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-106.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 09:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-78.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 10:04, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-72.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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 a bit dark. --Rjcastillo 19:15, 12 April 2023 (UTC)  Done @Rjcastillo: Thank you for your review - have lightened image. --Scotch Mist 10:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)  Support Good quality. --Rjcastillo 19:20, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-86.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Modern primat 13:03, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-92.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments There are some Dust spots at the lower right part of the sky. Additionally the image seams slightly  Underexposed. Fixable? --Augustgeyler 20:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)  Done --Scotch Mist 11:33, 16 April 2023 (UTC)  Support Sufficient quality now. --Augustgeyler 07:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-61.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --MB-one 19:09, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:30, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-90.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --Sebring12Hrs 16:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Austria Vienna 2022-91.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another 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. --MB-one 07:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

--QICbot (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2023 (UTC)