User talk:Slaunger/Archives/VIC

2008

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

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

review

 Info A threatened species in Canada. Quite abundant as Halibut bi-catch in Greenland. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)  Support Only photo of it's type for the fish and Satisfies the criteria. Bidgee (talk) 15:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 supoort

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

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

review

•  Info I will gladly admit, there are a few close competitors in Category:Royal Palace, Stockholm. I think the lightning is superior on this one though (I got up at 5am to get this light), although the tour boat in one corner is slightly distracting (but unavoidable on the day). -- Slaunger (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
•  Support It meets all the VI criteria and is a great shot to boot. From looking through the category, it's also clear to me that this is the best illustration available. --jonny-mt 02:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

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

review

•  Info This Arctic Fritillary (Boloria chariclia) was the only species of butterflys I noticed during a three months stay in North-West Greenland. Technically, it is not on par with FP quality butterfly photos, but this is the only close-up Commons has of this species and I think it illustrates the subject well. -- Slaunger (talk) 23:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support satisfies all criteria. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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

review

•  Info The original on which the restored version is based. Proposed as an alternative version by Durova. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Durova (talk) 23:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment It's a bit cut off. The scope's pretty wide - it's a set of 36, after all - surely we can find something without significant problems? Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. If you locate a better example from the set then by all means upload. :) Loss from the crop affects only about 5% of the total image. So compared to the other version I'll live with that until we get something better. Durova (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

MVR scores:
Image:The Great Wave off Kanagawa.jpg: -3
Image:Great Wave unrestored.jpg: +1 <--
Result:
Commons:Valued image candidates/The Great Wave off Kanagawa.jpg: Declined
Commons:Valued image candidates/Great Wave unrestored.jpg: Promoted <--

-- Slaunger (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

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

review

•  Info Sorensen's catchfly in Upernavik, Greenland. Only time I ever saw this species. -- Slaunger (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Subject and background are somewhat overexposed, but it is better than many photographs I've seen in published field guides and is a good illustration. It is a species that is only found in the arctic. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Neutral It is probably the best available on commons, although there isn't a single open flower in view (at least in focus), which makes the scope somewhat less fitting. Still not enough to oppose. Lycaon (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment I agree with the criticisms raised by both of you. When I saw it, it was late in its flowering period, and I did not observe it elsewhere. I also agree on the non-optimal lightning condition. Fortunately, I have some supplementary and quite decent detailed photos of open flowers on a neighbouring plant as can be seen in the other versions. It was also only later I realized that it is not a well documented species. Next time (if ever) I go there, I will bring a better camera, a tripod and assure a better timing with the life cycle ;-) -- Slaunger (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 1 neutral

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

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

review

•  Info Close up of Mossplant (Harrimanella hypnoides) photographed near the Greenlandic settlement Upernavik Kujalleq. I have another version, Image:Harrimanella hypnoides upernavik kujalleq 2007-07-24 1.jpg, which shows the whole plant, but I am inclined to believe this close-up is better at illustrating the species in review size. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment I think Category:Plants of Greenland shouldn't be there but in Category:Harrimanella hypnoides. --Sfu (talk) 20:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is controversial and something I disagree completely with. If I click in on Category:Plants of Greenland I personally only expect to see media of plants physically located in Greenland, but if I start associating species (which are also found elsewhere), with Plants of... categories, this will no longer be the case. Recently, there has been a drift from some Commons users to associate species with "Flora of..." categories. Something i do not really understand as plants and flora is the same for me, so i consider such categories redundant. With the categorization philosophy I use here, it enables me to search for images of a given species, located in a given region. I cannot do that with the scheme you suggest. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Ok. Personaly I don't like overloaded categories. But in this case it's better. --Sfu (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

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

review

•  Info Icebergs often has stripes of transparent (so-called black) ice formed in gletcher rifts by melting water, which freeze without having the air bubbles seen in the ordinary white ice, which originate from compressed snow. During iceberg calving, smaller pieces of ice (growlers) detach from the iceberg, and sometimes a black ice growler is formed. These are feared by motor boats sailing in arctic regions as they can be hard to see, and they are very resilient to fracture making them quite dangerous to collide with. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I think this is a wonderful image depicting the growlers and even more so on the specified black ice growlers. --IvanTortuga (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
•  SupportAgree with the above. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

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

review

•  Info Naajaat is the smallest of nine settlements in the Municipality of Upernavik, in North-West Greenland. It is positioned in the middle of Upernavik Icefiord and has a population of less than 100 inhabitants. The blue building to the left is used as school, church and social events. There are no shops in the settlement. The main occupation is sealing and halibut fishing. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment Hmm. Houston I have a problem. This is of course a very good image (but for the blown icebergs, it should be FP even), but how do I assess it at this (recommended) size? The houses are all but visible, while the scope is a village. All other criteria are also met. Should there be a special Valued Panoramic Image created? Lycaon (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
• Ouch, I didn't notice it was on portrait. In that case  Support of course, but the comment still stands for very long pano's. Lycaon (talk) 14:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Good point. First of all, I had made the obvious setup error to set the orientation to 'portrait', which rendered the image with a very small width. I have now changed that to landscape, which gives a better review size. However, it is still not optimal, as the number of displayed pixels in review size is still substantially smaller than the 4:3 or 3:2 aspect ratio more typically seen for ordinary images. I propose making the following adjustments:
    1. Introduce support for a third orientation parameter value called 'panoramic', which displays the image with an even larger width, assuming a typical aspect ratio for a panoramic image and having the same number as pixels as for a 'normal' aspect ratio image.
    2. As a last resort one could have the option to specify manually a width in pixels, if none of the orientation options works well for the nominated image. I think it would be overkill to introduce a separate class of valued images called Valued Panoramic Image. -- Slaunger (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm sure solution 1. should do the trick and indeed a separate class would be overkill, especially because on my first assessment I had assumed the image to be in landscape mode already and it looked really, really tiny ;-). Lycaon (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
      • OK. I have implemented support for a 'panorama' orientation (and updated this nomination accordingly) which renders the image in 800px wide, corresponding to std. 480x360px area at a panorama aspect ration of 1:4, which seem to be a typical value. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

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

review

 Info The Erigeron compositus is also known as Cutleaf daisy, Dwarf Mountain Fleabane, Fernleaf Fleabane or Vergerette à feuilles segmentées. These were spotted in Ilulissat, Greenland.

•  Support All criteria met to me. I wouldn't have supported it as a QI, but it already has the label :-) --Eusebius (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

  I recall it was disputed at QIC and barely made it there, and I agree it is in a questionable technical condition, so I certainly follow you comment regarding that aspect;-) -- Slaunger (talk) 09:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

  But again, it has nothing to do with the VI criteria (I guess you know that very well...), hence it doesn't affect my support. --Eusebius (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

  Exactly. VI clearly demonstrates that there are tons of images here images which fails both QIC and FPC criteria, but are still valuable, perhaps even unique and suitable for online display in Wikimedia projects. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

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

review

 Info A traditional Greenlandic dish. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Support Very nice image. Can't say the same about the fish though. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 16:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Believe it or not. They are actually quite tasty. ;-) -- Slaunger (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Only picture in its category, so I guess it is the best one. --Eusebius (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Satisfies all six criteria. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:25, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

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

review

•  Info Edit where restraining line has been cloned out as alternative to the original candidate. Added to MVR. -- Slaunger (talk) 11:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I prefer without the rope. --Eusebius (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

MVR results:
Commons:Valued image candidates/Greenland dog upernavik 2007-06-02 cloned and edited.jpg: 0
Commons:Valued image candidates/Greenland dog upernavik 2007-06-02 sample.jpg: +1 <--
=>
Image:Greenland dog upernavik 2007-06-02 cloned and edited.jpg: Declined
Image:Greenland dog upernavik 2007-06-02 sample.jpg: Promoted <--

-- Slaunger (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

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

review

 Info MS Fram on its maiden voyage to Greenland in the summer of 2007 (with one of my favorite icebergs in the background to set the arctic scene for which this ship is built). -- Slaunger (talk) 21:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

•  Support OK for me --Eusebius (talk) 12:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support--oskila (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: 2 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

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

review

•  Info There are a few reasonable images to choose from, but I prefer this one as it shows the flowers in three different stages. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 09:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 10:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

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

review

•  Info Cropped version of Image:Anthus godlewskii.jpg, which I find better at illustrating the subject at review size. Added to MVR. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support much better. Mrmariokartguy (talk) 04:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Well done! I've swapped the image in the above wiki articles.--oskila (talk) 05:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

* Support The other image is more beautiful, but this one is more useful in wikipedias.--Pere prlpz (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)Voting is closed as the image has been promoted. I will let your comment stay here though, but I am striking the vote as it is confusing when the result deviates from the votes seen. Does not matter much in this case anyway as the result is the same. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

MVR scores:
Commons:Valued image candidates/Anthus godlewskii.jpg: -2
Commons:Valued image candidates/Anthus godlewskii cropped.jpg: +3 <--
Result:
Image:Anthus godlewskii.jpg: Declined
Image:Anthus godlewskii cropped.jpg: Promoted <--

-- Slaunger (talk) 10:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

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

review

•  Info Spotted on a not so accessible cliff near Upernavik, Greenland. Only tme I ever saw this species. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 09:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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

review

•  Info New upload from today found while trawling through old photos. Pretty good one, I'd say. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 09:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

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

review

•  Info Cropped and noise reduced version of Image:Saxifraga rivularis plant upernavik 2007-07-09.jpg as alternative MVR candidate for the original VIC within the same scope. May be better for taxobox usage. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I think it's better. --Eusebius (talk) 08:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support This one is better. Mr. Mario (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

MVR scores.
Commons:Valued image candidates/Saxifraga rivularis plant upernavik 2007-07-09.jpg: -2
Commons:Valued image candidates/Saxifraga rivularis plant upernavik 2007-07-09 cropped filtered.jpg: +2 <--
Result:
Image:Saxifraga rivularis plant upernavik 2007-07-09.jpg: Declined
Image:Saxifraga rivularis plant upernavik 2007-07-09 cropped filtered.jpg: Promoted <--

-- Slaunger (talk) 21:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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

review

•  Info Freshly uploaded. A lot of other competitors. Personally, I see Image:Stockholm City Hall 2.jpg and Image:Stockholm City Hall.jpg as two quite good images of the same scope. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support I think this picture is of better quality and shows no ugly cranes. All three are distorted, but I think it is ok for a VI. --Eusebius (talk) 21:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

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

review

•  Info This species has a variant appearence and there are a few accepted sub-species around. I am not capable of identifying it to the sub-species level though, but I also doubt if it has any relevance for Wikimedia projects to dig deeper. This photo is from North-West Greenland. In Greenalnd there are three native species of Stellaria and one introduced. The other species are quite different in appearance from this one. Although, there are articles about the Genus Stellaria on different Wikipedias, there are not (yet) any species level articles. -- Slaunger (talk) 09:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me. The species looks different enough (to me) from the other Stellaria. The close-up shows the flower better, but shows nothing else. This one shows the flowers well enough, as well as the general aspect of the plant. --Eusebius (talk) 09:32, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

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

review

•  Info Just uploaded it. Six Wikipedias have articles about this Greenlandic settlement. -- Slaunger (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me, but same remark about the link in the scope: I'd rather limit them to the Commons project. --Eusebius (talk) 08:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>

promoted. -- Eusebius (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

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

review

•  Info Spotted in the Greenlandic settlement Upernavik Kujalleq. -- Slaunger (talk) 21:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
•  Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 11:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Result: 1 support

=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

2009

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

review

•  Support OK with me. May I please suggest to add the image to en:Viborg, Denmark#Education? It looks like this is Denmark's oldest educational institution.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the relevant advice. I have added it to the article in that section as suggested. --Slaunger (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Info I added a link to en:Viborg, Denmark in the scope, fixed a link in used in and moved the review to the reviews parameter. --Slaunger (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Info Don't know why I did not notice that before, but there is an en:Viborg Katedralskole, so I have changed the link in the scope to refer to that article. --Slaunger (talk) 22:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
•  Comment There's also a Commons category for it, therefore according to the guideline change you've initiated yourself, I took the liberty to modify the link in the scope... --Eusebius (talk) 09:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Eusebius for reminding me of guidelines I have helped craft;-) I did indeed create Category:Viborg Katedralskole along the way in this review. I did that as I also added two other photos to the category, that I took on the same day, one of a facade and one of the main entrance. These were not there when Mila reviewed the VIC, so in all fairness I think I should mention that although I personally consider these less good illustrations of the scope. --Slaunger (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 11:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Leaf-form and flowers are important in Louseworts. They are both visible. Meets citeria. Lycaon (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support OK for me. Lycaon (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

2010

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

review

•  Support Well illustrative, best in scope. All criteria met --George Chernilevsky ^talk 06:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
•  Support Agree with George. Moreover, this image depicts two sorts of human billboards, which is a plus.--Myrabella (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Very good quality, Best in scope.The link between the two images is very original. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
•  Support The location on the coast is characteristic fot the town, this image shows it. --Ikar.us (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Qaqortoq 2008-10-28.jpg: +2
2. Qaqortoq2008.JPG: +0 
=>
File:Qaqortoq 2008-10-28.jpg: Promoted.
File:Qaqortoq2008.JPG: Declined.

--George Chernilevsky ^talk 18:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Example real and very demonstrative of the use of Creole language; all criteria met. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Question What makes it really specific of Guadeloupean Creole? IMO “Créole antillais” or in English “Antillean Creole” would be enough for the scope (see: en:Antillean Creole or fr:Créole antillais for further details).--Myrabella (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Good question. I did consider using the scope Antillean Creole as well. It think it has some Guadeloupean specific things though. It is my impression that "ka" is specific for Guadeloupe, but I am not an expert regarding this. For instance, quote from en:Antillean Creole: How are you/how are you keeping-Ka ou fè? (Guadeloupe) / Sa ou fè (Martinique) Sa k ap fet (Haitian). I do not understand French very well, but if I understand fr:Créole guadeloupéen right, the different kinds of Creole spoken in the Caribbean are very similar and can be understood easily if you know one of them, and they are sometimes considered as one Antillean or Caribbean Creole. I guess some more details about what makes Guadeloupe Creole distinct is mentioned in that article, but I do not understand it well. But I am certainly open to widening the scope if the present scope is found too narrow. --Slaunger (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
    • According to fr:Créole guadeloupéen#Les prédicats et leurs combinaisons, «ka exprime l'action en train d'être réalisée (-ing anglais) » = ka expresses actions happening at the moment of speaking (-ing of the English present progressive). ka is also used in Martinique Creole in this way (see fr:Créole martiniquais). But a note in en:Antillean Creole says "Ethnologue[.com] considers Guadeloupean Creole French (spoken in Guadeloupe and Martinique) and Saint Lucian Creole French (spoken in Dominica and Saint Lucia) as two separate languages". So let's keep the present scope, and thank you for this quick Creole lesson ;-) --Myrabella (talk) 22:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
      • My pleasure. Well I certainly got further educated there. Thank you for your extended explanations of some of the fr Creole related articles. --Slaunger (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Felisitasyon ou te fè bèl foto --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
          • Thanks. Yesterday, I told the family, who has made the sign that it was used to illustrate en:Antillean Creole and they were really excited about that. It turns out it is their kids who have made the sign, because they were annoyed that cars were driving too fast. I think we got a few more Wikimedia fans there... I was wondering if any of you French speaking reviewers would be so kind to add it to fr:Créole guadeloupéen with a suitable caption? There are verified translations to French in the file page.--Slaunger (talk) 10:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Done added to fr:Créole guadeloupéen. Congratulations.----Jebulon (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ikar.us (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Best in scope and in my opinion on "Google image". All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
•  Support well done, criteria met --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. --Slaunger (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Best in scope, criteria met --George Chernilevsky ^talk 21:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Ikar.us (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 06:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
•  Question The geocoding would stop the other image from gettint the VI in another scope? I believe this could be categorized as Fryderyk Chopin (ship) with sails up. Flávio "Maddox" ^go! 15:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Not sure I fully understand the question? If you find, as a reviewer, that the photo with the sails up is better than the nominated image (although not geocoded), it is perfectly OK to oppose this nomination. I do not think a subscope with sails up would be accepted. Concerning geocoding it may actually not make much sense anyhow for sailing ships as the exact location is not normally known unless the photo itself is geotagged when captured. I think that for ships sailing it should be enough with a regional description in words of the approximate location (within, say 1 km, in a littoral environment, when there are some landmarks in the background, less precise in open sea). --Slaunger (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky ^talk 09:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

2012

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

review

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 20:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support All criteria met. Thank you for explanations. I realize that we neglect this field wrongly. here has given me the desire to see where your city it was located. For southern French, we always feel that the ice starts a little after Belgium ... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

•  Comment Oh, it is not the case ?--Jebulon (talk) 16:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
  • There is ice everywhere at all times of the year. I had to get up at 4am and use my potent hairdryer to melt the remaining icebergs in the lake prior to the shot . --Slaunger (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 20:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

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

review

•  Oppose Although this looks wonderful and I wish we had roundabouts like this where I live, I think this is extremely atypical of roundabout cycle lanes, which I'd guess are usually at-grade, as depicted in every other photo in Category:Roundabout cycle lanes. cmadler (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  •  Comment I see your point (and agree). As a matter of fact I am very much in doubt what to call "such a thing" in correct English? I asked a native English speaker prior to nomination what the correct term would be and the best suggestion was the stated scope. But I also agree with you, that this does not look like the most common type of roundabout cycle lane, as these are normally integrated with the roads for cars etc and in the same plane. Here the roundabout is placed in a lower plane connected with junctions under the ordinary road roundabout. I see more and more of these emerging in larger roundabouts in the outskirts of larger towns in Denmark these years, and I guess similar ones are likely to appear also in other countries where there is focus on safe infrastructure for bicycling, like the Netherlands and probably other countries as well. So maybe the scope is just not adequate? This image is the first of its kind of Commons it appears and illustrates "whatever it is to be called" well IMO, and thus VI material, provided a suitable scope. Any suggestions for a better, more differentiated scope? --Slaunger (talk) 06:55, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Perhaps the scope could be "Grade-separated bicycle roundabouts", "Grade-separated roundabout bicycle lanes", or something else similar? I think the key is to note that it is grade-separated from the roadway. cmadler (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I think that is a very good suggestion to add "grade-separated" somehow in the scope. I did not know that term, but reading about it via your link, it seems adequate. Later, when I get a little more time, I will make a dedicated category for this, and adjust the scope accordingly. Thanks. --Slaunger (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
•  Support a bit of utopia, does not hurt. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

---

Scope changed from Roundabout cycle lanes to Grade-separated bicycle roundabouts --Slaunger (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

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

---

•  Comment I created the new category Category:Grade-separated bicycle roundabouts, which has Category:Roundabout cycle lanes as its (only parent). I tried to look for a more general "grade-separated..." parent category as well, but did not find anything suitable. Ideas for improving the parent category tree are welcome. --Slaunger (talk) 19:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
•  Support I support in the new scope. The difficulty as to parent categories is that in some sense this represents two distinct interchanges (car roundabout and bicycle roundabout). cmadler (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Theoretically, the other parent category would probably be "Grade-separated junctions", but it would take a fair bit of work to insert that into the current category structure. cmadler (talk) 20:13, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 11:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Citroën DS 21 Cabriolet.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment If I were a traffic agent I would fine severely the owner for parking the car on the sidewalk! ;-) Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I think the owner is probably sufficiently wealthy not to care about a parking fine. The price for such a car is probably around 170000€. --Slaunger (talk) 21:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
    •  Support All criteria met IMO. -- JLPC (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
•  Support @ Alvesgaspar: fortunately (for the offender), the plate is blanked --Jebulon (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
•  Support -- Well, I'll let this one pass. Maybe I'm becoming softer? Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Result: 3 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 22:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 21:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Very didactic. No problem for geocoding. Very good scope. Um... are you sure there are pear trees in Denmark? You wanted to write pine trees :) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I can assure you that there are pear trees in Denmark. They grow well here. I have the "conference" cultivar. Not the prettiest pear to look at, but the taste!!! Uhm!! Last year it was filled with juicy pears and I ate one every day in September by going out to the tree and pick one after getting home from work. I have also had a large pine tree in the garden, but it is such a dull tree and gave too much shadow for the fruit trees (apple, pear, plums, cherry), and I prefer the latter relative to pine. You still think the ice starts after Belgium? This week we had sun and 25-28 °C most days. --Slaunger (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 20:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Criteria satisfied; it is an appealing photograph and is well-described and categorized. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

2013

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

review

 Support Useful is that you're happy with? Does it consume a lot of gasoline? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

• I just happened to be at a place where it landed on a small field on a small island and I had my camera with me. I do not know anything about its actual consumption although its Rotax 582 two-stroke two-cylinder is a fairly modest 64 hp engine. I guess it must be limited how 'thirsty' such a thing is. But I once did try flying in a T-17 Supporter with a friend as pilot, and that went OK, until he made a "hammerhead" maneuver and I had to urgently use a 'certain bag' in the plane. Since then I have not tried flying in small aircraft! --Slaunger (talk) 13:44, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

2014

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Mjølner-Fur (ship, 2011).
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. P e z i (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. P e z i (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Comment In general it is possible to correct the distortion of perspective. But certainly if we must do so in moderation. There appears to have a new program for this problem I'll be interested. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

  Archaeodontosaurus, I'm not sure to have understand correctly what you wrote above. But if you search a program to correct the distortion of perspective, in lightroom 5 there is now a setting to compense exactly the crushing, in french it is called aspect. -- Christian Ferrer ^Talk 06:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

   Info This is what a not perspective corrected version looks like: File:Edificio España 2014-02-10.jpg. --Slaunger (talk) 22:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Very didactic --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Question Why scope, does not directly contain the category OY-ATI (aircraft)? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Info Thanks for your question, Archaeodontosaurus. 56 of these planes were built and several of them (I do not know exactly how many) are still capable of flying. 10 of them were used 1950-1977 as tariners by the Royal Danish Airforce. The different planes have different coloring and this one, with registration OY-ATI has also previously had another color scheme, and I see no point in narrowing down the scope to a particular plane. It would be a little bit like having VI scope for both a yellow, blue, red, and white Citroen DS 21 for instance. --Slaunger (talk) 18:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
•  Comment Thank you for the explanation. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Best in Scope --Myrabella (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. I would add "interior" in the scope, though.

That is a good point, Myrabella. I have modified the scope accordingly. --Slaunger (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. P e z i (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:11, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

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

review

 Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 Support Useful --Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Halavar (talk) 22:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

2015

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

review

•  Support Good. Yann (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Tomb King Chr IX Queen Louise 2015-04-01-4804.jpg

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

review

 Support Good & Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

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

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

review

 Comment The moon is distorted, change the ratio of the sides, it seems to me that with a width of 1901 - the height of 4500 pixels will be good. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

• • @Jacek Halicki: : Brilliantly spotted! I had not thought about checking the aspect ratio against the eccentricity of the moon. New version uploaded. I re-developed the raw; did not end up at quite the same aspect ratio as you suggest, but something in between. It looks more realistic now, I think. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
•  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:55, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Much better. --Yann (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support Sure! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Info New version uploaded: perspective corrected, dust spot, sky reworked after feedback at COM:FPC. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
•  Support--Jebulon (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Viborg Katedralskole Symmetrical.jpg: +3 <--
2. Katedralskolen viborg 2009-04-19.jpg: 0 (current VI within same scope)
=>
File:Viborg Katedralskole Symmetrical.jpg: Promoted. <--
File:Katedralskolen viborg 2009-04-19.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former.

--Slaunger (talk) 08:48, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

2016

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

review

 Support Usefull --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

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

review

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

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

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

•  Support Useful --Raihan Rana (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:01, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

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

review

 Support I made some attempts to corrections, but they are not appeared interresting. It's the best image we have. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support Useful. INeverCry (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
•  Support Wellcomme Home --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Hehe, thank you, Archaeodontosaurus! -- Slaunger (talk) 16:52, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

2017

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

review

•  Comment Thanks for adding it to an article, Jebulon! -- Slaunger (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
  • ...As it should always be ! Haha 😂 !--Jebulon (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support - Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Support Very good. Are you sure it's a Danish bike? I thought there were only snowmobiles in Denmark. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Well, why do you think the company was closed? -- Slaunger (talk) 07:09, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support - Best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
•  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Scores:
1. Commons:Valued image candidates/Amsterdam Centraal 2016-09-13.jpg: +2 <--
2. Commons:Valued image candidates/Amsterdam (NL), Centraal Station -- 2015 -- 7269.jpg: -1 (current VI within same scope)
=>
File:Amsterdam Centraal 2016-09-13.jpg: Promoted. <--
File:Amsterdam (NL), Centraal Station -- 2015 -- 7269.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former

-- Slaunger (talk) 19:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

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

review

•  Support - I guess it's traditional for people to leave graffiti when they do get there? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2017 (UTC)