Commons:Closed most valued reviews/2009/04

Aqueduto dos Pegões

View Nominated by: Eusebius (talk) on 2009-03-23 13:54 (UTC) Scope: Aqueduto dos Pegões Used in: Aqueduct, Aqueduto dos Pegões, fr:Aqueduc des Pegões, ja:トマール, pt:Aqueduto  Comment Perspective is good but lacking details --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)  Support I slightly prefer this one, because I can see the shape of the trench(?) on this one although the image quality of the alternative is better. --Slaunger (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)  Oppose This comparison is tough. I slightly prefer the other version, because finer structural conditions are hardly visible on this one. I'am afraid but quality is very important here - a contradiction to criteria 1 but more quality would fulfil criterion 3. Honestly said both pictures are not perfect because the canal should be connected with the junction on a figurative base. This is a case where the picture should be self explaining. The foreground isn't so important --Richard Bartz (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Scores: 1. Aqueduto dos pegoes.jpg: 0 3. Tomar December 2008-4.jpg (2): 0 => File:Aqueduto dos pegoes.jpg: Undecided. File:Tomar December 2008-4.jpg: Undecided. --Eusebius (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View Nominated by: Eusebius (talk) on 2009-03-23 13:54 (UTC) Scope: Aqueduto dos Pegões Used in: Aqueduto dos Pegões, en:Aqueduct, pt:Aqueduto dos Pegões  Comment This image looks tilted somehow but has better details and lighting. --Richard Bartz (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)  Info - Not the image but the structure, which has some non-vertical parts. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2009 (UTC)  Neutral The comparison is very tricky. This picture shows the canal as well. This version is more descriptive on a overall structural reference. Honestly said both pictures are not perfect because the canal should be connected with the junction on a figurative base. This is a case where the picture should be self explaining --Richard Bartz (talk) 19:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)  Info -- This picture was just published in the number of April of the National Geographic Portugal -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 21:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Scores: 1. Aqueduto dos pegoes.jpg: 0 3. Tomar December 2008-4.jpg (2): 0 => File:Aqueduto dos pegoes.jpg: Undecided. File:Tomar December 2008-4.jpg: Undecided. --Eusebius (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Lotus cytisoides (Grey Bird's-Foot Trefoil)

View opposition Nominated by: Lycaon (talk) on 2009-03-17 09:29 (UTC) Scope: Lotus cytisoides (Grey Bird's-Foot Trefoil) Used in: ca:Llista de plantes de Catalunya, es:Parque Natural del Delta del Ebro  Support OK for me. I made a slight modification in the scope format. --Eusebius (talk) 08:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)  Oppose Hmmm... According to COM:VISC I would say we should stick to a species scope as the plant is not of sufficient notability to warrant a subscope (flowers) - and speaking of which I am honestly in doubt if this or its other version in the species cat us the best illustration of the species. --Slaunger (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC) Vote cancelled after scope change. --Slaunger (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC) A discussion of "When are species subscopes warranted?" (my words) was moved to Commons talk:Valued image scope[1] Walter Siegmund (talk) 02:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Scope changed from Lotus cytisoides (Grey Bird's-Foot Trefoil), flowers to Lotus cytisoides (Grey Bird's-Foot Trefoil) Lycaon (talk) 10:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".  Question I'm inclined to support File:Lotus cytisoides (habitus).jpg because it shows the leaves as well as the flowers. The leaves seem to help distinguish it from Lotus creticus. Why do you think this one is more valuable? Walter Siegmund (talk) 19:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)  Neutral I echo Walters question, this one does not seem like a clear winner to me, so I am opening an MVR. --Slaunger (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2009 (UTC) Scores: 1. Lotus cytisoides.jpg: 0 3. Lotus cytisoides (habitus).jpg: +1 => File:Lotus cytisoides.jpg: Declined. File:Lotus cytisoides (habitus).jpg: Promoted. --Eusebius (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Slaunger (talk) on 2009-03-23 21:25 (UTC) Scope: Lotus cytisoides (Grey Bird's-Foot Trefoil)  Info Nominated as an alternative to Commons:Valued image candidates/Lotus cytisoides.jpg. --Slaunger (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)  Support because it shows the leaves as well as the flowers. The leaves seem to help distinguish it from Lotus creticus. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Scores: 1. Lotus cytisoides.jpg: 0 3. Lotus cytisoides (habitus).jpg: +1 => File:Lotus cytisoides.jpg: Declined. File:Lotus cytisoides (habitus).jpg: Promoted. --Eusebius (talk) 13:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Allianz Arena

View Nominated by: Eusebius (talk) on 2009-03-26 22:05 (UTC) Scope: Allianz Arena Scores: 1. Allianz arena daylight Richard Bartz.jpg: 0 3. Allianz-Arena-München.jpg: 0 => File:Allianz arena daylight Richard Bartz.jpg: Undecided File:Allianz-Arena-München.jpg: Undecided --Eusebius (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View Nominated by: Eusebius (talk) on 2009-03-26 22:05 (UTC) Scope: Allianz Arena Scores: 1. Allianz arena daylight Richard Bartz.jpg: 0 3. Allianz-Arena-München.jpg: 0 => File:Allianz arena daylight Richard Bartz.jpg: Undecided File:Allianz-Arena-München.jpg: Undecided --Eusebius (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Xerus inauris (Cape Ground Squirrel)

View opposition Nominated by: Lycaon (talk) on 2009-03-29 19:27 (UTC) Scope: Xerus inauris (Cape Ground Squirrel) Used in: fr:Xerus inauris, nl:Kaapse grondeekhoorn, species:Sciuromorpha, species:Xerus inauris Reason: High resolution image showing animals with typical vigilant behaviour in their natural environment -- Lycaon (talk)  Oppose I think File:Xerus inauris.jpg is better at illustrating this scope, so I am moving this to MVR. --Slaunger (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)  Neutral Changed my mind. This is also a good candidate, but the alternative is better IMO. --Slaunger (talk) 11:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Scores: 1. Xerus inauris 1.jpg: 0 2. Xerus inauris.jpg: +1 => File:Xerus inauris 1.jpg: Declined File:Xerus inauris.jpg: Promoteded. --Eusebius (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Slaunger (talk) on 2009-04-02 21:14 (UTC) Scope: Xerus inauris (Cape Ground Squirrel) Reason: Better for illustrating the species than File:Xerus inauris 1.jpg because the entire animal is better seen, and the composition is less confusing in review size. I can also see this image is used as the taxobox image on the Wikipedias I checked, and I tend to agree with that choise. -- Slaunger (talk)  Support Agree with Slaunger's comments above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yann (talk • contribs) 2009-04-07 21:06 (UTC) (UTC) Scores: 1. Xerus inauris 1.jpg: 0 2. Xerus inauris.jpg: +1 => File:Xerus inauris 1.jpg: Declined File:Xerus inauris.jpg: Promoteded. --Eusebius (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Großhesseloher Brücke

View opposition Nominated by: Richard Bartz (talk) on 2009-03-28 22:46 (UTC) Scope: Großhesseloher Brücke Used in: de:Großhesseloher Brücke Backgroundinformation: At the opening in 1857 this bridge was the 2nd highest railroad bridge in the world. Richard Bartz (talk) 19:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)  Request It is the camera location you should geocode, and for these types of photos it is also very helpful to add a heading to the geodata. It gives this cool pointer on GM/GE. The difference between object and camera location is irrelevant for your usual subjects, but this is different;-) --Slaunger (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Done --Richard Bartz (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)  Support Pedantic as I can sometimes be, I adjusted the heading a little . Fulfills all criteria. It adds considerable to the value that you have managed to capture a traint right in the middle of the bridge. Very nice. I also found this historic photo from before 1900 quite valuable and interesting for historic reasons, but I tend to favour the nominated image. --Slaunger (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Vote changed after MVR opened. --Slaunger (talk) 11:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Well, pedantism ? I'am in I think we should raise the value of the picture a bit more, how ? I found out that 2 different trainlines crossing the bridge, so I went to this place in the morning and waited for them. Should I withdraw in favour to the new picture ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 15:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC) More quality, bigger size & all possibilities (trains, pedestrians, bikers and the little diner which sells Weißwurst and Wiener on the very left side)  Comment I like that attitude! Well the most natural thing would be for you, the nominator and creator of both images to open an MVR where the two images compete. --Slaunger (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC) OK, done --Richard Bartz (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)  Neutral OK, I still think this is a good candidate, but the other candidate in this MVR is slightly better because there are two trains there. --Slaunger (talk) 11:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Scores: 1. Grosshesseloher Brücke R B.jpg: 0 2. Grosshesseloher Bruecke.jpg: +2 => File:Grosshesseloher Brücke R B.jpg: Declined. File:Grosshesseloher Bruecke.jpg: Promoted. --Eusebius (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Richard Bartz (talk) on 2009-04-03 00:10 (UTC) Scope: Grosshesseloher Bruecke Used in: de:Großhesseloher Brücke Reason: More quality, bigger size & all possibilities (trains, pedestrians, bikers and the little diner which sells Weißwurst and Wiener on the very left side) -- Richard Bartz (talk)  Support Meets all criteria and slightly better than its MVR competitor. --Slaunger (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)  Support Agree with above. Yann (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Scores: 1. Grosshesseloher Brücke R B.jpg: 0 2. Grosshesseloher Bruecke.jpg: +2 => File:Grosshesseloher Brücke R B.jpg: Declined. File:Grosshesseloher Bruecke.jpg: Promoted. --Eusebius (talk) 11:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Fort du Salbert

View Nominated by: ComputerHotline (talk) on 2009-04-06 10:42 (UTC) Scope: Fort du Salbert  Comment The main entry is too narrow a scope (and "HDR" should definitely not be part of it). Do you think it would be a good illustration for the fort as a whole? With a scope like "Fort du Salbert"? --Eusebius (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Scope changed from Main entry of the fortifications of the Salbert hill (HDR) to Fort du Salbert --ComputerHotline (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC) Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".  Comment Personally, I would prefer a more general view of the place, like File:Thomas Bresson - Entree-fort-1 (by).jpg. Yann (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)  Oppose The file should properly renamed before. Yann (talk) 09:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC) There is currently nothing in the criteria about the title of a picture. --Eusebius (talk) 06:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)  Info MVR set up. --Eusebius (talk) 13:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC) Scores: 1. ComputerHotline - entree (by).jpg: -1 2. Thomas Bresson - Entree-fort-1 (by).jpg: -1 => File:ComputerHotline - entree (by).jpg: Undecided. File:Thomas Bresson - Entree-fort-1 (by).jpg: Undecided. --Eusebius (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View Nominated by: Eusebius (talk) on 2009-04-07 13:35 (UTC) Scope: Fort du Salbert  Oppose Should be properly renamed before. A crop of the ground would improve it. Yann (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC) There is currently nothing in the criteria about the title of a picture. --Eusebius (talk) 06:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Per Yann about the image name --Richard Bartz (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Scores: 1. ComputerHotline - entree (by).jpg: -1 2. Thomas Bresson - Entree-fort-1 (by).jpg: -1 => File:ComputerHotline - entree (by).jpg: Undecided. File:Thomas Bresson - Entree-fort-1 (by).jpg: Undecided. --Eusebius (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Bridge 25 de Abril, Lisbon

View promotion Nominated by: Alvesgaspar (talk) on 2009-04-09 09:03 (UTC) Scope: Bridge 25 de Abril over the Tagus, Lisbon Used in: Ponte 25 de Abril  Comment - Aesthetically, I very much prefer this one. But am not sure about the value -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2009 (UTC)  Support I think it is a better illustration of the bridge, more adapted for a headline illustration in an article. --Eusebius (talk) 09:19, 9 April 2009 (UTC)  Support Meets all criteria. Where is the toll plaza ? --Richard Bartz (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Scores: 1. Ponte25Abril1.jpg: +2 2. Bridge Tagus April 2009-1a.jpg: 0 => File:Ponte25Abril1.jpg: Promoted. File:Bridge Tagus April 2009-1a.jpg: Declined. --Eusebius (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Alvesgaspar (talk) on 2009-04-09 09:07 (UTC) Scope: Bridge 25 de Abril over the Tagus, Lisbon Used in: Ponte 25 de Abril  Comment - Aesthetically, I very much prefer the first one. But am not sure about the value -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 09:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Scores: 1. Ponte25Abril1.jpg: +2 2. Bridge Tagus April 2009-1a.jpg: 0 => File:Ponte25Abril1.jpg: Promoted. File:Bridge Tagus April 2009-1a.jpg: Declined. Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Dartington Hall

View opposition Nominated by: Mbz1 (talk) on 2009-04-10 15:42 (UTC) Scope: Dartington Hall Used in: en:Dartington Hall  Comment Crop and tilt correction would be nice. Also, why not this one? --Eusebius (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you for the review and for the comment. May I please ask you, if you prefer crop or original or nominating the one that you suggested? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC) An MVR can be set up if it is needed, but: Between this one and the crop, I'd favour a crop (subject is too tiny here); Between this one (cropped) and the other, I don't know: which side is more relevant, and why? --Eusebius (talk) 14:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you. I took another look and I believe now that the one you suggested is better because in the nominated image part of the building is behind the trees. May I please ask you how I should proceed, just to change the image in this existing nomination or create a new one (Sorry, I probably should have known this myself, but I do not)? --Mbz1 (talk) 14:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC) I suggest you put all the images in competition in a most valuable review (MVR). Nominate them all (invididually), give them a "discussed" status, add an entry in this page (there is an example in the source code) and remove this entry from the main list. --Eusebius (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2009 (UTC)  Info Image changed, MVR set up. --Eusebius (talk) 16:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Scores: 1. Dartington hall.jpg: 0 2. Main Hall entrance Dartington.jpg: +1 => File:Dartington hall.jpg: Declined. File:Main Hall entrance Dartington.jpg: Promoted. --Eusebius (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Mbz1 (talk) on 2009-04-10 15:45 (UTC) Scope: Dartington Hall  Support I think that this side of the building may be more illustrative/relevant, it actually shows the hall. --Eusebius (talk) 10:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Scores: 1. Dartington hall.jpg: 0 2. Main Hall entrance Dartington.jpg: +1 => File:Dartington hall.jpg: Declined. File:Main Hall entrance Dartington.jpg: Promoted. --Eusebius (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

World Health Organisation building, Geneva

View opposition Nominated by: Yann (talk) on 2009-04-09 12:35 (UTC) Scope: World Health Organisation building, Geneva. Used in: en:World Health Organisation, fr:Organisation mondiale de la santé, de:Weltgesundheitsorganisation, es:Organización Mundial de la Salud, eo:Monda Organizaĵo pri Sano, ca:Organització Mundial de la Salut, it:Organizzazione mondiale della sanità  Comment I hesitate which image to nominate. Please help with your comments. Yann (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)  Comment I think this one is interesting as well, as it shows the logo quite prominently (as well as the general aspect of the main building). I cannot choose for the moment. --Eusebius (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Yes, I hesitated with this one, but overall my nomination is of much better quality. The building is huge, and there is not enough distance to take a photo of the whole building from the north side. Yann (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Would you care to setup an MVR? --Eusebius (talk) 15:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC) Scores: 1. World Health Organisation building south face.jpg: 0 2. OMS.jpg: +1 => File:World Health Organisation building south face.jpg: Declined. File:OMS.jpg: Promoted. --Eusebius (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	Commons:Valued image candidates/World Health Organisation headquarters, Geneva, north and west sides.jpg

Grimspound

View opposition Nominated by: Mbz1 (talk) on 2009-04-12 03:24 (UTC) Scope: Grimspound Used in: en:Grimspound Reason: IMO the best image in the category to illustrate the scope. -- Mbz1 (talk) In my opinion, File:Grimspound view 2.jpg is the most valuable as it shows the whole of Grimspound. Grimspound circle 4 is just an example of one of the things found there, all-be-it a very good photograph. Would be a good candidate for quality image. Jolly Janner (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Thank you for your comment, Jolly Janner.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Scores: 1. Grimspound circle 4.jpg: 0 2. Grimspound view 2.jpg: +1 => File:Grimspound circle 4.jpg: Declined. File:Grimspound view 2.jpg: Promoted. --Eusebius (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Mbz1 (talk) on 2009-04-16 15:50 (UTC) Scope: Grimspound Used in: en:Grimspound  Support As I already stated on the other image up for review, this image shows the whole of Grimspound. Jolly Janner (talk) 17:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC) Scores: 1. Grimspound circle 4.jpg: 0 2. Grimspound view 2.jpg: +1 => File:Grimspound circle 4.jpg: Declined. File:Grimspound view 2.jpg: Promoted. --Eusebius (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Ruins of the castle in Szubin

View Nominated by: Albertus teolog (talk) on 2009-04-20 10:07 (UTC) Scope: Ruins of the castle in Szubin Used in: pl:Pałuki Scores: 1. Szubin.ruiny2.JPG: 0 2. Szubin.ruiny3.JPG: -1 => File:Szubin.ruiny2.JPG: Undecided File:Szubin.ruiny3.JPG: Undecided. --Eusebius (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View Nominated by: Albertus teolog (talk) on 2009-04-19 14:16 (UTC) Scope: Ruins of the castle in Szubin Used in: pl:Szubin  Oppose I prefer File:Szubin.ruiny2.JPG (wider view). Also, I'm really unsure about the relevance of the scope. Is this castle really of "more than local interest"? --Eusebius (talk) 08:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Well... Actually these are only the ruins of the castle :-) Albertus teolog (talk) 09:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC) And this one isn't? Why the different scopes? --Eusebius (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC) I understand what you said to ask is why is called differently in scope. Actually meant to do the same. Castle as a building does not exist. There is only ruin. It has historic significance, but it is not a typical castle. I think that such a scope will be more precise. Albertus teolog (talk) 10:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC) OK, then could you choose a scope and set up an MVR with the two pictures? Either "ruins..." or simply "castle", I have the same concerns. --Eusebius (talk) 11:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Scope changed from Szubin Castle to Ruins of the castle in Szubin Albertus teolog (talk) 11:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn". Scores: 1. Szubin.ruiny2.JPG: 0 2. Szubin.ruiny3.JPG: -1 => File:Szubin.ruiny2.JPG: Undecided File:Szubin.ruiny3.JPG: Undecided. --Eusebius (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Torre de Belém

View promotion Nominated by: Alvesgaspar (talk) on 2009-04-20 07:26 (UTC) Scope: Tower of Belém Used in: Tower of Belém, Torre de Belém, Tour de Belém  Support Excellent quality. Fit the scope. Yann (talk) 08:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)  Comment Yes, sure, but this one is good too: File:Torre de Belém Lisboa Richard Bartz.jpg. Joaquim's one is more detailed at full size, but on Richard's one the tower looks cleaner and has less dark parts. I'll set up an MVR. --Eusebius (talk) 13:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Scores: 1. Torre Belém April 2009-4a.jpg: +1 2. Torre de Belém Lisboa Richard Bartz.jpg: 0 => File:Torre Belém April 2009-4a.jpg: Promoted. File:Torre de Belém Lisboa Richard Bartz.jpg: Declined. --Eusebius (talk) 11:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Eusebius (talk) on 2009-04-20 13:48 (UTC) Scope: Torre de Belém Scores: 1. Torre Belém April 2009-4a.jpg: +1 2. Torre de Belém Lisboa Richard Bartz.jpg: 0 => File:Torre Belém April 2009-4a.jpg: Promoted. File:Torre de Belém Lisboa Richard Bartz.jpg: Declined. --Eusebius (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)