Last modified on 8 October 2014, at 13:15

Commons:Valued image candidates

This project page in other languages:

English | français | polski | русский | +/−

Shortcut
COM:VIC
Skip to image nominations Skip to image nominations Most valued reviews Skip to most valued reviews Skip to set nominations Skip to set nominations
Valued image seal.svg

These are the candidates to become valued images. Please note that this is not the same as featured pictures or quality images. If you simply want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at photography critiques.

Single images can be proposed for valued image (VI) status. Candidates must be proposed as being the most valuable of all Commons' images within a specified scope. Judging is carried out according to the valued image criteria.

A Most Valued Review (MVR) is opened where there are two or more candidates competing within essentially the same scope.

The rules for promotion can be found at Commons:Valued image candidates/Promotion rules.

An image which has previously been declined can be renominated within the same scope only if the issues leading to the original decline have been addressed. Previously nominated images that were closed as "undecided" can be renominated at any time. Once a candidate achieves VI or VIS status it can normally be demoted only if some better candidate replaces it during an MVR.

If you would like to nominate an image for VI status, please do so following the instructions below. If you are proposing a better candidate within essentially the same scope as an image which already has VI status, please open an MVR.

Skip to current candidates Valued Image links:

How to nominate an image for VI statusEdit

Nominations will be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. Please read those criteria before submitting an image to help cut down on the number of candidates that have a low chance of success. Make sure you understand the concept of scope and how to choose the correct scope for your nomination. Please make sure that your proposed image fulfills all of the necessary criteria before nominating it. For example, if it needs to be geocoded, do that in advance. If no appropriate categories exist, create and link them beforehand. Although some reviewers may help by fixing minor issues during the review process, it is your responsibility as nominator to ensure your image ticks all the necessary boxes before you propose it. If you nominate an image that ignores one of the criteria, don't be surprised if it fails VI review.

Adding a new nomination (image)Edit

Step 1: Copy the image name into this box (excluding the File: prefix), at the end of the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Valued image candidates/My-image-filename.jpg. Then click on the "Create new nomination" button.


Step 2: Follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save the resulting VIC subpage.

Step 3: Manually add the candidate image towards the end of Commons:Valued image candidates/candidate list (under the heading "New valued image nominations"), as the last parameter in the VICs template. Click here, and append the following line as the last parameter of the relevant section:

|My-image-filename.jpg

so that it looks like this:

{{VICs
 ...
 |My-image-filename.jpg
}}

and save the candidate list.


RenominationEdit

Declined VICs can be renominated by any registered user, but only after one or more of the root cause(s) leading to a decline has/have been addressed. Undecided VICs can be renominated as is although it is still recommended to consider and fix issue(s) which may have hindered a promotion of the candidate in the previous review.

Besides fixing issues with the previous nomination the following procedure shall be followed upon renomination.

Step 1: Edit the candidate subpage you intend to renominate. All declined and undecided VICs are placed in either Category:Declined valued image candidates, or Category:Undecided valued image candidates and sorted by the date of the previous nomination.

Step 2: Replace the previous nomination date and time by pasting in

|date={{subst:VI-time}}

Step 3: Replace the "undecided" or "declined" status with "nominated" (or "discussed" if you intend to add it to a Most Valued Review).

Step 4: If the previous nominator was a different user replace the nominator parameter with

|nominator=~~~

Step 5: If the candidate does not already have an archive link to previous reviews: Create one using the following procedure.

  • Cut the text in the previous review section (leave the closing braces "}}")
  • replace the review parameter with
|review=
{{subst:VIC-archive}}
}}
  • Save the page.
  • There is now a red link to Previous reviews. Click the link to create the archive subpage and paste in the previous reviews.
  • Save the previous reviews archive page

Step 6: Add the candidate to the candidates list.

How to open a Most Valued ReviewEdit

There must be at least two candidates competing within essentially the same scope to open an MVR. Each needs its own VIC subpage, which should be created as above if it does not already exist. Then, add the following section at the end of the page Commons:Valued image candidates/Most valued review candidate list:

=== Scope ===
{{VICs
  |candidate1.jpg
  |candidate2.jpg
}}

where candidate1.jpg and candidate2.jpg are the VIC subpages of the respective candidates. If need be, also remove the relevant image(s) from the list in Pending valued image candidates

If one of the candidates is an existing VI within essentially the same scope, the original VIC subpage is re-opened for voting by changing its status to status=discussed and new reviews are appended to the original VIC subpage. However, any original votes are not counted within the MVR.

Each candidate should have its status parameter set to discussed, while the MVR is ongoing.

How to review the candidatesEdit

How to review an imageEdit

Any registered user can review the valued image candidates. Comments are welcome from everyone, but neither the nominator nor the original image author may vote (that does not exclude voting from users who have edited the image with a view to improving it).

Nominations should be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. Please read those and the page on scope carefully before reviewing. Reviewing here is a serious business, and a reviewer who just breezes by to say "I like it!" is not adding anything of value. You need to spend the time to check the nomination against every one of the six VI criteria, and you also need to carry out searches to satisfy yourself on the "most valuable" criterion.

Review procedureEdit

  • On the review page the image <!!--or image set--> is presented in the review size. You are welcome to view the image in full resolution by following the image links, but bear in mind that it is the appearance of the image at review size which matters.
  • Check the candidate carefully against each of the six VI criteria. The criteria are mandatory, and to succeed the candidate has to satisfy all six.
  • Use the where used field, if provided, to study the current usage of the candidate in Wikimedia projects. If you find usage of interest do add relevant links to the nomination.
  • Look for other images of the same kind of subject by following the links to relevant categories in the image page, and to any Commons galleries.
    • If you find another image which is already a VI within essentially the same scope, the candidate and the existing VI should be moved to Most Valued Review (MVR) to determine which one is the more valued.
    • If you find one or more other images which in your opinion are equally or more valued images within essentially the same scope, you should nominate these images as well and move all the candidates to an MVR.
  • Once you have made up your mind, edit the review page and add your vote or comment to the review parameter as follows:
You type You get When
*{{Comment}} My Comment. -- ~~~~ *Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment My comment. -- Example You have a comment.
*{{Info}} My information. -- ~~~~ *Pictogram voting info.svg Info My information. -- Example You have information.
*{{Neutral}} Reason for neutral vote. -- ~~~~ *Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Reason for neutral vote. -- Example You are uncertain or wish to record a neutral vote.
*{{Oppose}} Reason for opposing vote. -- ~~~~ *Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Reason for opposing vote. -- Example You think that the candidate fails one or more of the six mandatory criteria.
*{{Question}} My question. -- ~~~~ *Pictogram voting question.svg Question My question. -- Example You have a question.
*{{Support}} Reason for supporting. -- ~~~~ *Symbol support vote.svg Support Reason for supporting. -- Example You think that the candidate meets all of the six mandatory criteria.
  • If the nomination fails one of the six criteria, but in a way that can be fixed, you can optionally let the nominator know what needs to be done using the {{VIF}} template.
  • Your comment goes immediately before the final closing braces "}}" on the page.


How to update the status
  • Finally, change the status of the nomination if appropriate:
    • status=nominated When no votes or only neutral votes have been added to the review field (blue image border).
    • status=supported When there is at least one {{Support}} vote but no {{Oppose}} votes (light green image border).
    • status=opposed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote but no {{Support}} votes (red image border).
    • status=discussed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote and one {{Support}} vote (yellow image border).


Remember the criteria: 1. Most valuable 2. Suitable scope 3. Illustrates well 4. Fully described 5. Geocoded 6. Well categorized.

Changes in scope during the review periodEdit

The nominator is allowed to make changes in scope as the review proceeds, for example in response to reviewer votes or comments. Whenever a scope is changed the nominator should post a signed comment at the bottom of the review area using {{VIC-scope-change|old scope|new scope|--~~~~}}, and should also leave a note on the talk page of all existing voters asking them to reconsider their vote. A support vote made before the change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn.


You can submit new nominations starting on COM:VIC.

Pending valued image candidatesEdit

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache
16,168 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
13,850 (85.7%) 
Undecided
  
905 (5.6%) 
Declined
  
1,413 (8.7%) 


New valued image nominationsEdit

   
Chiesa di San Leonardo a Venezia facciata.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Wolfgang Moroder (talk) on 2015-05-23 21:43 (UTC)
Scope:
The San Leonardo church in Venice, facade

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This facade is beautiful and photography very hard to do. But there is too much deformation. There should be two images with a 10mm. We can put it on our cameras, which automatically manages the reduction of fields. I did not take with me this year. It's a good challenge --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the review @Archaeodontosaurus, you are right I didn't have the right lens with me. I didn't understand what you mean with "our cameras, which automatically manages the reduction of fields". Cheers --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Large sensors can not fall below 24mm. If you place a 10mm lens, viewfinder you have the image framed by a red rectangle shows the area that you lose. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
Maybe we should discuss this somewhere else but with my Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR lens I dont see any red rectangle in the viewfinder. Thanks --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 17:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with the argument of Archaeodontosaurus, but support anyway, because for me photo meets all VI creteria, especially for me it is best in this scope at the moment -- J. Lunau (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Unfortunately not; VI in the batiements should be perfectly described. Perspective distortion is not eligible.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Archaeodontosaurus. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Open for review.
Thunderbolt above Vyšné Hágy.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Midnight Runner on 2015-05-24 10:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Cloud-to-cloud lightning

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Congratulations to this breathtaking photo, I like it. But you have chosen such a broad scope (160 photos in it), that I can't decide, if your shot is VI. Maybe you can find a smaller scope? --J. Lunau (talk) 12:37, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Dwór w Jaszkowej Górnej 03.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-05-25 19:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Manor in Jaszkowa Górna, outbuilding, exposure from N

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 07:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
2015 Dwór w Orłowcu 01.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-05-25 19:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Manor in Orłowiec, exposure from N

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 07:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
2015 Dwór w Orłowcu 03.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-05-25 19:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Manor in Orłowiec, barn

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 07:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Rio di San Lorenzo a Venezia.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Wolfgang Moroder (talk) on 2015-05-26 06:04 (UTC)
Scope:
"Rio di San Lorenzo" canal (Venice). View of southern half from San Lorenzo bridge
Used in:
fr:Rio di San Lorenzo

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 07:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 07:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hochbahn hamburg 40.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2015-05-26 15:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Notgeld of Hamburg, stoneware coin of 1921: HOCHBAHN HAMBURG - 40 Pfennig.

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Vitsebsk Uspenskaja carkva.JPG
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jarash (talk) on 2015-05-26 17:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of the Dormition in Viciebsk
Used in:
Church of the Dormition in Viciebsk Wikipedia: ru:Успенская церковь (Витебск)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Must connect the scope to the category that contains the image --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done --Jarash (talk) 22:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not has the scope to be corrected: I did, look syntax. You must now correct perspective: the walls are not straight.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Open for review.
Ala Napoleonica Procuratie.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Wolfgang Moroder (talk) on 2015-05-26 17:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Procuratie Napoleonic wing, view from Piazza San Marco

Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope --Halavar (talk) 12:57, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Iglesia de Nuestra Señora de la Antigua - side altar nr.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2015-05-26 17:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Iglesia de Nuestra Señora de la Antigua, Antigua, Fuerteventura, nave, side altar

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Dworzec PKP w Lądku-Zdroju 01.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-05-26 20:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Train station in Lądek-Zdrój, exposure from NE

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Dworzec PKP w Lądku-Zdroju 02.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-05-26 20:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Train station in Lądek-Zdrój, exposure from WNW

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:55, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Dwór w Trzebieszowicach, mur oporowy 01.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-05-26 21:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Rothenhof Manor house in Trzebieszowice, retaining wall

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Kościół św. Jana Chrzciciela w Ołdrzychowicach Kłodzkich 01.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-05-26 21:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of Saint John the Baptist in Ołdrzychowice Kłodzkie, portal

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Kościół św. Mikołaja w Radochowie 07.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-05-26 21:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of St. Nicholas in Radochów, altar

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful. --Halavar (talk) 12:56, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Pałac w Oldrzychowicach Kłodzkich, pierwszy pawilon w parku 01.JPG
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-05-26 21:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Oppersdorfe's palace park in Ołdrzychowice Kłodzkie, the first pavilion
Open for review.
Finhan - Lavoir - exterieur.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2015-05-27 05:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Finhan, the Laundry Napoléon III - Exterior

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Rose de Lima par Thibaud Maitrie - Saint Exupère à Toulouse.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2015-05-27 05:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Church Saint-Exupère from Toulouse, Rose of Lima, by Thibaud Maistrier

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Palazzo Salviati (Venice).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2015-05-27 05:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Palazzo Salviati in Venice - facade on Grand Canal.

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:46, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
"The good Shepherd" mosaic - Mausoleum of Galla Placidia.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Mile (talk) on 2015-05-27 05:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Mausoleum of Galla Placidia, The Good Shepherd mosaic
Used in:
yet uplodaded, will replace others in Galla Placidia article
Reason:
Best in scope. -- Mile (talk)

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Pałac w Oldrzychowicach Kłodzkich, stajnia 01.JPG
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-05-27 11:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Oppersdorfe's palace in Ołdrzychowice Kłodzkie, outbuilding, former stable
Open for review.
2015 Pałac w Żelaźnie, park 01.JPG
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-05-27 11:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Żelazno palace park, bridge
Open for review.
2015 Pałac w Żelaźnie, park 03.JPG
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-05-27 11:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Żelazno palace park, miniature park
Open for review.
2015 Pałac w Żelaźnie 01.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-05-27 12:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Żelazno palace, exposure from E

Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope --Halavar (talk) 13:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Cerkiew św. Michała Archanioła w Herceg Novi - portal.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Halavar (talk) on 2015-05-27 13:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint Michael the Archangel church in Herceg Novi, Montenegro. Portal.

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2014 Prowincja Kotajk, Klasztor Geghard (02).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Halavar (talk) on 2015-05-27 13:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of Our Lady. Geghard monastery. Kotayk Province, Armenia. Southern portal.

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Pałac w Żelaźnie, oficyna mieszkalna 01.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-05-27 13:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Żelazno palace, outbuilding

Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Notgeld trier 50 millionen mark.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2015-05-27 16:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Notgeld of Trier, Germany, 1923: 50 million mark banknote.

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Mitra bovei 01.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2015-05-27 20:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Mitra bovei (Bove's Mitre), Shell

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Pholcus phalangioides MHNT Ventral side.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2015-05-28 05:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Pholcus phalangioides (Daddy longlegs) - Ventral side

Symbol support vote.svg Support amazing photo with all VI criteria, so I support.--J. Lunau (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Baziège - Aerial view.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2015-05-28 05:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Baziège Haute-Garonne, France - Aerial view - Northwest exposure

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful, already used for many wikipeda articles. I support even to me it looks kind of blurry. --J. Lunau (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Palazzo Contarini dal Zaffo (Venice) - Facade.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2015-05-28 05:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Palazzo Contarini dal Zaffo Venice - Facade on Rio della Madonna dell'Orto.

Symbol support vote.svg Supportbest in scope, because it is the only one, showing the complete facade. Annotation with detail is also great. --J. Lunau (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Botanical garden Bamberg.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
J. Lunau (talk) on 2015-05-28 11:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Boranical garden in Bamberg
Used in:
de:Stadtpark Hain (Bamberg)
bar:Bamberg
Reason:
no other photo in scope --> -- J. Lunau (talk)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:22, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Kückelheim Luftbild 2012.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
El Grafo (talk) on 2015-05-28 16:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Kückelheim (Schmallenberg)
Used in:
Reason:
If required, I can refine the scope by adding something like aerial view. But since it is the only image showing the whole village, I'd say the broader scope is justified for now. -- El Grafo (talk)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Faro de La Entallada.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2015-05-28 17:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Faro de la Entallada, Fuerteventura, view from SE

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
50000 mark aachen.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2015-05-28 19:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Notgeld of Aachen, Germany, 1923: 50,000 Mark banknote

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Lądek-Zdrój, ul. Słodowa 41 01.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-05-28 21:32 (UTC)
Scope:
41 Słodowa Street in Lądek-Zdrój, exposure from W

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful. --Halavar (talk) 13:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Lądek-Zdrój, ul. Słodowa 41 02.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-05-28 21:36 (UTC)
Scope:
41 Słodowa Street in Lądek-Zdrój, exposure from S
Open for review.
2015 Villa Barbara w Lądku-Zdroju 01.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-05-28 21:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Villa Barbara in Lądek-Zdrój, exposure from SW

Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope --Halavar (talk) 13:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Villa Barbara w Lądku-Zdroju 03.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-05-28 21:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Villa Barbara in Lądek-Zdrój, exposure from NW
Open for review.
2015 Dworzec PKP w Lądku-Zdroju 05.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-05-28 22:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Train station in Lądek-Zdrój, outbuilding

Symbol support vote.svg Support ok. --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Huta Szkła Kryształowego 'Violetta' w Stroniu Śląskim.JPG
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-05-28 22:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Crystal Glass Factory "Violetta" in Stronie Śląskie, the oldest building
Open for review.
Papilio hospiton MHNT CUT 2013 3 10 Bigorno male Dorsal.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2015-05-29 05:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Papilio hospiton (Corsican Swallowtail) mounted specimen - male - Dorsal side
Open for review.
Entrée - Jardin des Plantes de Toulouse.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2015-05-29 05:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Entrance of jardin des plantes, Toulouse

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Ponte sotto il Convento di Santo Stefano (Venice).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2015-05-29 05:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Ponte sotto il convento di San Stefano, Venice.

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Monetaria moneta - 2.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
FredD (talk) on 2015-05-29 09:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Live Monetaria moneta (money cowry) - Réunion island lagoon
Reason:
Picture displaying both the characteristic shell and the mantle of the live animal, in situ. -- FredD (talk)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Berdorf (LU), Hohllay -- 2015 -- 6097-101.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
XRay talk on 2015-05-29 11:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Inner view of Hohllay near Berdorf in Luxembourg
Used in:
de:Waldbillig

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Kościół św. Jana Chrzciciela w Nowym Gierałtowie 04.JPG
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-05-29 11:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint John the Baptist church in Nowy Gierałtów, exposure from N
Open for review.
2015 Villa Elise w Stroniu Śląskim 01.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-05-29 11:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Villa Elise in Stronie Śląskie, exposure from SE

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful. --Halavar (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Villa Elise w Stroniu Śląskim 02.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-05-29 11:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Villa Elise in Stronie Śląskie, exposure from SW

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful. --Halavar (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Kościół Zmartwychwstania Pańskiego w Stroniu Śląskim 01.JPG
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-05-29 11:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Christ's Resurrection Church in Stronie Śląskie, exposure from NW
Open for review.
2015 Kościół Zmartwychwstania Pańskiego w Stroniu Śląskim 03.JPG
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-05-29 11:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Christ's Resurrection Church in Stronie Śląskie, votive pole
Open for review.
Palm Springs International Airport photo D Ramey Logan.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
El Grafo (talk) on 2015-05-29 13:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Palm Springs International Airport, final approach on runway 13R
Used in:

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Kaplica św. Onufrego w Stroniu Śląskim 02.JPG
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-05-29 19:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint Onuphrius chapel in Stronie Śląskie, exposure from SW
Open for review.
Eobania vermiculata 02.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2015-05-29 20:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Eobania vermiculata (Chocolate-band Snail), shell, cream-coloured form

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:04, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Eglise Saint-Martin de Finhan - Vitrail.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2015-05-30 06:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Finhan - St. Martin's church - Vitral of the eighteenth century
Open for review.
Hotel de Saint-Jory à Toulouse.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2015-05-30 06:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Hôtel de Saint-Jory à Toulouse in Toulouse, facade.
Open for review.
Ponte San Antonio (Cannaregio).jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2015-05-30 06:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Ponte San Antonio in Venice - North East exposure
Open for review.
St David's Cathedral and Bishop's Palace - geograph.org.uk - 774149.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Ham II (talk) on 2015-05-29 07:16 (UTC)
Scope:
St David's Cathedral, view from the SE
Open for review.


Pending Most valued review candidatesEdit

Three Brothers Fountain in Cieszyn, PolandEdit

   
Studnia Trzech Braci 2.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Halavar (talk) on 2013-10-03 09:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Three Brothers Fountain in Cieszyn, Poland.
Reason:
Best in scope. -- Halavar (talk)

Previous reviews

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Opened for MVR, because 10 days ago image within the same scope was unfortunately promoted. --Halavar (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMO this picture is better. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Cieszyn Studnia Trzech Braci 2.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Albertus teolog (talk) on 2015-05-22 20:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Three Brothers Fountain in Cieszyn

Previous reviews

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Opened for MVR, because there is image within the same scope. --Halavar (talk) 14:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Close race, but the composition and framing is best on this one, although the light is better on the alternative. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:30, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Sarcophagus of Agia Triada, north sideEdit

   
Sarcophagus archmus Heraklion.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2015-05-22 17:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Sarcophagus of Agia Triada, north side
Reason:
Not from a book, a real picture, taken by me in the museum. All the face is visible, even the feet. Quality is far much better than our current VI, IMO. Geocode is in the "institution template". -- Jebulon (talk)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Are you sure about the WB? It appears to be too cold. -- Slaunger (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
    • The museum is completely renovated, and the light is very different nowadays than before. I masked the explicit (but busy) background, but as far as I can say and as I remember, yes, the wb is good, now (it was far much colder before processing). Previous pictures are wrong (too hot) before, with yellow cast. But I could correct if necessary.--Jebulon (talk) 09:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
      • You know best what you sawSmile. I just noticed the shadow under it has a blue tint, which is often an indication of a too cold WB, which triggered my remark. -- Slaunger (talk) 08:02, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good work. --Yann (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support other candidate has some flare and does not show whole item. Good composition, attractive photo. --Pitke (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Sarcophagus from Aghia Triada.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Slaunger (talk) on 2015-05-22 20:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Sarcophagus of Agia Triada, north side

Previous reviews

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Viborg KatedralskoleEdit

   
Viborg Katedralskole Symmetrical.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Slaunger (talk) on 2015-05-22 19:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Viborg Katedralskole
Used in:
da:Viborg Katedralskole, en:Viborg Katedralskole, and secondary uses in three other articles
Reason:
There is an existing VI of this scope of the same view, which I took 7 years ago with a compact camera. This nomination from April 2015 is much more recent, and is a tone-mapped HDR stitch build from raws taken with a DSLR using Lightroom and PTGui. This has resulted in a much higher reolution image with better dynamic range, and quality. -- Slaunger (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Much better. --Yann (talk) 21:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Sure! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info New version uploaded: perspective corrected, dust spot, sky reworked after feedback at COM:FPC. -- Slaunger (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support--Jebulon (talk) 09:19, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Katedralskolen viborg 2009-04-19.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Slaunger (talk) on 2015-05-22 20:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Viborg Katedralskole
Used in:
da:Viborg Katedralskole, da:Hack Kampmann, en:Viborg Katedralskole, en:Viborg, Denmark
Reason:
This is the existing VI of this scope taken by me 7 years ago with a compact camera. Now superseeded by this photo of much better quality from April 2015. -- Slaunger (talk)

Previous reviews

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Pending valued image set candidatesEdit

New valued image set nominationsEdit

Warning This section has been deactivated because of technical issues. Please do not add any VI set candidate.

Closed valued image set candidatesEdit