Comment I'm just wondering, isn't there some uniform language that we use when naming the scope? That is interesting because what if this recently promoted image was in scope named in the language of the subject's home country?--MrPanyGoff 19:31, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
The church is known as Iglesia de San Juan Bautista, so it wouldn't make much sense to choose the scope "Church of John the Baptist" in my opinion... -- Felix König✉ 17:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Where is the church known as Iglesia de San Juan Bautista??? In Finland I suppose. ;) OK, I'm going to write it again: This temple is known as مسجد الرفاعى, This one is known as Храм Христа Спасителя and This one is known as Theseion Ναός Ηφαίστου. All of them are VI and use an uniform language as the scope name. Do you think that it makes sense creating a mixed-language scopes list? It would be a hard to use list, imo. I think that the scope of the nominated photo should be: St. John the Baptist Church, Telde (exterior).--MrPanyGoff 07:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Furthermore, the articles and photos in an encyclopedia are mostly for the people who don't know the subject and not so much for those who are familiar with it.--MrPanyGoff 08:08, 11 January 2011 (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 St. Angelo.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Support I feel that this image meets all the criteria and is the best image in the category. -- Admrboltz (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Oppose I feel that the location is wrong. --Ikar.us (talk) 01:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I see, it was the object location, with senseless heading parameter. Added camera location. Support --Ikar.us (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Comment - I have some hesitation considering this photo also. It has not so good quality and is distorted but gives additional information. Cannot decide which one for now.--MrPanyGoff 19:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Comment - I can understand, I also hesitated befor nominating. Some additional information, which isn't clearly visible on the pictures: The tow pictures are taken from different view of the building. The nominated picture is a view from the street, the other photo is taken from a higher part of the village hill. -- Felix König✉ 18:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Support - Finally, the better quality and details make me support this one.
Since you are interested in this project you should also look at the nominated photos and review some of them. ;)--MrPanyGoff 18:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
es ist ja wirklich nicht böse gemeint und meine ironische Übertreibung der Notizen in diesem Bild File:Mummelsee-Kapelle 2011.jpg sollen eigentlich nur mein Argument untermauern, dass man in einem Bild immer alles mögliche beschriften kann, aber ich sehe in so einem Fall nun wirklich nicht, worin die Notwendigkeit besteht. Grüße --Wladyslaw (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Ich sehe keine Notwendigkeit jedweder Annotationen - schon bei ihrer Einführung war mir die Funktion ein Dorn im Auge. Auch ich selbst verwende die Dinger mehr ironisch als zur Illustration, wobei ich gerne zugebe, dass ich mich schon daran gewöhnt habe. 95 % meiner Bilder kommen ohne Notizen aus... dass es heute gleich zwei Stück mit Annotationen sind, lag wohl an meiner chronischen Langeweile ;-) Eines jedenfalls kann ich dir versichern: Meine nächsten hochgeladenen Bilder kommen ohne Notizen aus. Definitiv. Aus genannten Gründen. Grüße, -- Felix König✉ 18:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
ich bin doch ein wenig über deine scheinbare Unerfahrenheit beim Fotografieren erschüttert; bei den KEB hättest du schon lernen müssen bzw. weißt du auch eigentlich, wie man mit Baustellen im Hintergrund umzugehen hat (Stichwort Sprengstoff etc.)... --Carschten 16:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
An own article isn't part of the criteria. It's the town hall of a town with 24.000 inhabitants and part of the biggest market place of Germany. -- Felix König✉ 10:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
...and of course it's relevant enough for an own article. You are cordially invited to write one. -- Felix König✉ 10:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Comment-quality of Wetenschatje is running often the same way: arthropod and other animals are relevant, architecture is not relevant for Wetenschatje beside of well known sightseeing places --Wladyslaw (talk) 08:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Support we don't have many pictures of the townhall, but I can't imagine a picture more valuable for this subject. --Don-kun (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
CommentGood technical quality, but the tree on the right is disturbing (see image note)--Ankara 10:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I think it's an important element of the composition. -- Felix Koenig 13:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC) I am not convinced so I will not review the image. I hope we get a second opinion. Regards--Ankara 13:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)I agree with F.K. I do so sometimes. If well done (it is the case here), it fills empty spaces nicely, IMO. The main subject is not disturbed by the tree and is fully visible.--Jebulon 08:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
You now have the Patroller right and may call yourself a patroller ! Please take a moment to read the updated Commons:Patrol to learn how Patrolling works and how we use it to fight vandalism.
As you know already, the patrolling functionality is enabled for all edits, not just for new-page creations. This enables us to keep track of, for example, edits made by anonymous users here on Commons.