Commons:Valued image candidates

(Redirected from Commons:VIC)
Shortcut
COM:VIC
This project page in other languages:
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, but with status set to "discussed". 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.

The status parameter of each candidate should remain 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 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. -- ~~~~ You have a comment.
*{{Info}} My information. -- ~~~~ 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. -- ~~~~ 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
40,140 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
35,996 (89.7%) 
Undecided
  
1,958 (4.9%) 
Declined
  
2,186 (5.4%) 


New valued image nominationsEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Martinvl (talk) on 2020-09-14 20:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Vehicle preceded by safety Red Flag
Reason:
Between 1865 and 1896 the speed limit on British roads was 4 mph (6.4 km/h). In addition, a person carrying a red flag had to walk in front of the vehicle to warn people of its impending approach. The red flag used to warn people of the approach of this 1901 steam roller is typical of that era (although the steam roller itself was built 5 years after the act was repealed). -- Martinvl (talk)
  •   Comment Please link an appropriate Commons category, rather than a Wikipedia article. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek:   Done Martinvl (talk) 10:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

  Scope changed from Vehicle preceded by safety Red Flag to Vehicle preceded by safety Red Flag --Martinvl (talk) 10:59, 15 September 2020 (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".

  • @Archaeodontosaurus: What do you suggest as a scope? I could change the word "Vehicle" to "Steamroller" if you would prefer that. Before making a suggestion, please take note that:
  • The Red Flag Acts (see en:Locomotive_Acts, de:Red Flag Act or fr:Locomotive Act) only applied in the United Kingdom between 1865 and 1896 and in the US state of Vermont between 1894 and 1896.
  • This act is covered in eleven different language versions of Wikipedia (three listed above).
  • Only one of those versions (German) had an image before I added my photo.
  • As far as I can see, there is only one other image of a red flag in Commons that could be used to illustrate any of these articles and that image is obviously posed (it was taken in about 1896). My image shows an actual action photo.
Martinvl (talk) 11:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose: as the "Red Flag Act" was repealed in 1896, it is incongruous to see later vehicles (the 1901 steamroller and a 2000s Transit van) in an image purporting to depict it, especially when there is another, apparently contemporaneous, image in the same category. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
shizhao (talk) on 2020-09-15 02:02 (UTC)
Scope:
North Complex Fire 2020
  •   Comment I wonder if it might be too soon to judge on a scope like this. According to the Wikipedia article you linked this is an ongoing event, and new pictures are probably going to trickle onto Commons throughout the next few days and weeks. We should probably wait until enough pictures are available to judge and a category is created before making a decision. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 16:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment scope too vague. We cannot summarize such an event with a single image. But it is possible to refine the scope by reducing it to the bridge. In this case the application is completely acceptable. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment Absolutely. I will have to oppose this scope if it's not changed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Declined if the last vote was added no later than 08:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) on 2020-09-15 18:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Flag of Mexico
Reason:

The reasons why the flag of Mexico should be a valuable image are the following:

  • 1-It is considered the most beautiful flag in the world since in 2008 it received that title.
  • 2-It is one of the few flags that are based on myths, since the Aztec myth tells that how its people wandered for hundreds of years in the Mexican territory looking for the sign indicated by their gods to found the city of Tenochtitlán (the current City of Mexico), where they saw an eagle devouring a snake. -- Aurelio de Sandoval (talk)
  •   Comment Please fix your scope. Your scope is the flag of Mexico, and the only argument that you need to believe and make is that this is the very best image of the Mexican flag on this site. Unless you've checked all the other images of the Mexican flag on this site, you can't make that argument. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek:, please in spanish please,Also, I ask you please be specific, I don't know what you mean by: "fix your scope" If you give me an example, I would appreciate it.--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 14:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Ikan Kekek:Please, what this is the scope?, I don't understand, nor do I understand English, I have to use Google translator and sometimes the translator is not good at translating.--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Your scope has to be Flag of Mexico. I don't know the Spanish word for scope, but right now, the line in question says "scope=SVG flags of Mexico". The file type is not relevant to how it looks as a thumbnail in an article. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:22, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Aurelio de Sandoval: The general rules about "Valued images" (imágenes valiosas) are available in both English and Spanish. By comparing the two texts, I believe that the Spanish word for "scope" is "ámbito". The rules about "scope" are in English (scope), French (domaine) and German (Beriech). Unfortunately they are not yet available in Spanish. I hope that this helps. Martinvl (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Martinvl:Ready, I have already placed the scopes, now can you make my image valuable?--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 14:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Aurelio de Sandoval: I have taken the liberty of writing the scope in the way in which it is expected - Note that there is only one link. Also, I have removed the item in the global list. If you click on "Global usage" you can see everywhere where it is used. Your image has been used over 500 times!
  • Since I have helped you, I will leave it to somebody else to judge whether or not it is a valuable image. I hope that this helps you. Martinvl (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Martinvl: Thank you really, I appreciate that you have helped me, the truth is I am not good at nominating images.--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    •   Comment Now that the scope is correct, please help us choose which image of the Mexican flag is best in scope. What criteria should we use? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Rhododendrites talk |  on 2020-09-15 23:42 (UTC)
    Scope:
    8 Spruce Street
    •   Best in Scope, I think, though it has competition. It's possible there might be a dust spot just above the right side of the roof. It looks that way at smaller resolution but not clearly so at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
    •   Comment I feel that the color in this photo isn't accurate. In all other photos the color of the building is silver, but this appears to be more of a white/blue color. Also see this Google Street View. Thoughts? —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    •   Comment Your point of view is valid. I've seen this building many times, and it indeed is not blue and is more silver. However, it reflects the sky. If we reject this over the color, which one do you think is BIS? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    •   Comment But the other structures shown in that picture distract the viewer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    •   Comment Then how about File:Gehry 8 Spruce fr BB Pk Pier 1 jeh.jpg? I just don't like the upwards angle of the picture you suggested; I feel like it's an awkward angle and it doesn't show the shape of the building well in my opinion, if you understand what I mean. Perhaps there should be different scopes for different sides of the building? —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Kestreltail, Ikan Kekek: I took a stab at color correction and uploaded a new version. No worries if another one turns out to be the best in scope, though. — Rhododendrites talk |  20:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    •   Comment I actually find the composition of this shot to be perfect, only the color doesn't seem to quite represent the actual building. Have you considered nominating to FPC, Rhododendrites? —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    •   Question Should we do a most valued review? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Have you considered nominating to FPC - Thanks for suggesting. I was hoping for something FPC level when I took the shots, but I failed to get enough on the left/right. The effect is, IMO, a solid VI but without the wider perspective or better lighting I don't think it would fare well at FPC. I could be wrong (I often am), but I'm not intending to nominate. :) — Rhododendrites talk |  02:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    View promotion
    Nominated by:
    Llez (talk) on 2020-09-16 05:48 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Sinum maculatum (Spotted Baby Ear Snail), shell
    Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
    promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:59, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
    Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 06:28 or 18:28 (UTC)
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Palauenc05 (talk) on 2020-09-16 07:45 (UTC)
    Scope:
    50 Pfennig "Notgeld" banknote of Eisenach (1921), RV: front yard of the Wartburg
    Used in:
    Money of Germany
    Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 08:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2020-09-16 09:04 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Poplar Farm, Saughall Massie
    Used in:
    Wikidata:Q26549444
    Reason:
    From the pavement, as close as I could legally get, hence the vegetation. But you can still see the essential features, the datestone and quoining. -- Rodhullandemu (talk)
    •   Best in Scope, as it's the only photo showing the front of the house. If you know the date of construction, it would be great to include that in the file description. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    •   Comment Thanks. I've added the date from the datestone, but that may not be accurate. Rodhullandemu (talk) 06:45, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Gzen92 [discuter] on 2020-09-16 10:20 (UTC)
    Scope:
    World War II memorial in Morgat
    •   Support Useful. Unusual type of war memorial. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Gzen92 [discuter] on 2020-09-16 10:20 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Retable du Rosaire (église Saint-Ronan) (Altar of the rosary)
    •   Comment Please note that this is not the main altar but an altar of a later chapel, you must give your om in the scope; here the altar of the rosary.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
      Done Gzen92 [discuter] 06:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
      Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Gzen92 [discuter] on 2020-09-16 10:20 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Chaire de l'église Saint-Ronan (Locronan)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Gzen92 [discuter] on 2020-09-16 10:22 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Pipe organ in église Saint-Ronan
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Palauenc05 (talk) on 2020-09-16 11:27 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Wayside cross (1653) in Esch (near Wittlich)
    •   Support Useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Palauenc05 (talk) on 2020-09-16 14:49 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Wayside shrine (1623) in Esch (near Wittlich)
    •   Support Useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2020-09-16 13:54 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Saughall Massie bridge
    Used in:
    Wikidata:Q26670936
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2020-09-16 09:51 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Brassey plaque on Saughall Massie bridge
    Used in:
    Wikidata:Q26670936
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Palauenc05 (talk) on 2020-09-16 17:50 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Catholic church St. Margaretha in Klausen (Eifel), Germany, view South.
    •   Support Useful --Ercé (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Ercé (talk) on 2020-09-16 19:24 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Larus marinus eggs (great black-backed gull) eggs

      Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 05:06, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    GRDN711 (talk) on 2020-09-17 03:13 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Capitán Leonidas (ship, 1937) - IMO 5542705
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Llez (talk) on 2020-09-17 05:04 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Prionovolva brevis ( Fruit Egg Snail), shell
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-09-17 05:06 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Maréchal Ferdinand Foch par Firmin Michelet - Valentine (Haute-Garonne)

      Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-09-17 05:08 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Buzet-sur-Tarn - Le poids public, France (Weigh house)

      Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-09-17 05:09 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Portrait de Georges Gaudion - Luce Boyals - Musée du Pays rabastinois

      Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Gzen92 [discuter] on 2020-09-17 07:06 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Standing stone Les Causeurs
    •   Best in Scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Gzen92 [discuter] on 2020-09-17 07:07 (UTC)
    Scope:
    World War II memorial in Île de Sein
    Open for review.
     
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Gzen92 [discuter] on 2020-09-17 07:07 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Lighthouse Men-Brial
    •   Comment I'm having trouble picking any image as best in scope. Can we please have one photo that's vertical? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Gzen92 [discuter] on 2020-09-17 07:12 (UTC)
    Scope:
    South facade of Église Saint-Magloire de Telgruc-sur-Mer
    Ok but missing the back and masked by the triumphal arch. Gzen92 [discuter] 06:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Gzen92 [discuter] on 2020-09-17 07:16 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Cross of église Saint-Magloire de Telgruc-sur-Mer
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Palauenc05 (talk) on 2020-09-17 08:43 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Pilgrimage church Maria Heimsuchung in Klausen, Germany, view East
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Jaqen (talk) on 2020-09-17 16:25 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Kelvin Parker
    Used in:
    arz:كيلڤين پاركير, it:Kelvin Parker, d:Q14396117
    Reason:
    Only in scope. -- Jaqen (talk)
    •   Support Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Jaqen (talk) on 2020-09-17 16:27 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Alessandra Sardoni
    Used in:
    eml:Alessandra Sardoni, it:Alessandra Sardoni, it:q:Alessandra Sardoni, simple:Alessandra Sardoni, d:Q3609710
    Reason:
    Best in scope imho. -- Jaqen (talk)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Palauenc05 (talk) on 2020-09-17 17:54 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Pulpit and confessional in Pilgrimage church Maria Heimsuchung, Klausen, Germany.
    •   Support Useful image, the only in scope -- Spurzem (talk) 21:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Spurzem (talk) on 2020-09-17 21:14 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Dürkopp Diana: front and right side
    Used in:
    de: Dürkopp Adler
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) on 2020-09-17 23:51 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Agustin de Iturbide

    Previous reviews

    •   Comment The scope must not contain the institution template. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:13, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    •   Oppose per Archaeo. --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Archaeodontosaurus:But if you told me that the geocoding is that of the National Museum of History, you told me before.--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 14:11, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    •   Comment As I already said the geocoding must appear in the caption. The surest way to understand is to look at the captions of other candidates. For the re-enactment of images that were not retained: a new element must be emphasized.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

      Scope changed from Agustín de Iturbide by Primitivo Miranda

    Museo Nacional de Historia     
     
    Native name Museo Nacional de Historia (MNH)
    Location Chapultepec Hill, Chapultepec Park, Colonia Miguel HIdalgo, Mexico City (México, D. F.), México.
    Coordinates 19° 25′ 14″ N, 99° 10′ 54″ W      
    Established from 1778 until 1788
    date QS:P,+1750-00-00T00:00:00Z/7,P580,+1778-00-00T00:00:00Z/9,P582,+1788-00-00T00:00:00Z/9
    : built
    : opened to public
    Web page http://www.mnh.inah.gob.mx/
    Authority control
    institution QS:P195,Q6940502

    to Agustin de Iturbide --Martinvl (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2020 (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".

    Open for review.
     
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) on 2020-09-18 00:06 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Emiliano Zapata
    Reason:
    Emiliano Zapata was one of the people who fought in Mexico against the dictatorship to give the Mexicans the lands that belonged to them and this is one of the most iconic images that are remembered of him. -- Aurelio de Sandoval (talk)

    Previous reviews

    •   Comment The scope must not contain the institution template. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    •   Oppose No new element since the previous appointments. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

      Scope changed from Emiliano Zapata by HJ Gutierrez.

    Center for the Study of Mexican History     
    Native name Centro de Estudios de Historia de México Carso Fundación Carlos Slim
    Location Mexico City
    Coordinates 19° 20′ 47″ N, 99° 11′ 03″ W      
    Established 1965
    Web page cehm.com.mx
    Authority control
    institution QS:P195,Q5059962

    to Emiliano Zapata --Martinvl (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2020 (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".

    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) on 2020-09-17 17:52 (UTC)
    Scope:
    José María Morelos

    Previous reviews

    •   Oppose No new element since the previous appointments. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Archaeodontosaurus:Whoever understands it, really say something logical.--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
      •   Comment Nobody was interested enough in the previous nomination to support it. Renominating the image without any additional information is unlikely to change that, and indeed may be counter-productive. I have removed {{Institution}} as it's not part of the scope. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:24, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Rodhullandemu:Ready, I have already placed the scopes, now can you make my image valuable?--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
      Comment I have no opinion either way on the merits of the image. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Archaeodontosaurus: Scope is now in line with normal VI rules.--  Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) . 18:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    •   Comment I think the scope you really want is José María Morelos, portrait. That said, there are several portraits in scope, and I really have no idea which one is best. How are you determining which one you think is best? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) on 2020-09-17 23:57 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla

    Previous reviews

    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) on 2020-09-18 00:53 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Vicente Guerrero

    Previous reviews

    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    —Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2020-09-18 02:33 (UTC)
    Scope:
    1285 Avenue of the Americas
    •   Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    •   Comment BIS, but we rarely use any name other than 6th Avenue, so I would suggest renaming the scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    •   Comment I am aware that New Yorkers call it 6th Avenue, but I did a quick Google search of "1285 6th Avenue" and most of the results were still 1285 Avenue of the Americas. Most building databases list this as 1285 Avenue of the Americas. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    •   Question And it's not just that they haven't updated the name or address for a few decades? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    —Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2020-09-18 02:38 (UTC)
    Scope:
    432 Park Avenue, New York
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-09-18 05:03 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Portrait d'un rabastinois - Luce Boyals - Musée du Pays rabastinois inv.1989.1.3 (Portrait of an inhabitant of Rabastens)

      Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 05:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-09-18 05:05 (UTC)
    Scope:
    St Jacques en pélerin - Bois et polychromie XVIe - Musée du Pays rabastinois (St Jacques in pilgrim)

      Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-09-18 05:06 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Église Saint Jean-Baptiste de Bessières, France - Le chœur et le maître autel néo-gothique
    (The choir and the neo-Gothic high altar)

      Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Llez (talk) on 2020-09-18 05:30 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Helicigona pouzolzii, shell, unicoloured form

      Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Gzen92 [discuter] on 2020-09-18 06:56 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Pennon armorié, interior of église Saint-Magloire in Telgruc-sur-Mer
    •   Comment The scope is too vague. it must be reduced by adding the place where the object is located. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

      Done Gzen92 [discuter] 09:39, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Gzen92 [discuter] on 2020-09-18 07:03 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Portal of Église Saint-Magloire de Telgruc-sur-Mer
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Gzen92 [discuter] on 2020-09-18 07:04 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Cross of chapelle du Mont-Saint-Michel-de-Brasparts (Saint-Rivoal)
    Open for review.
     
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Gzen92 [discuter] on 2020-09-18 07:05 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Arc de triomphe de Sainte-Marie-du-Menez-Hom
    •   Question Is it tilted as shown? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Gzen92 [discuter] on 2020-09-18 07:06 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Kiosque (place des Otages, Morlaix)
    •   Support Useful, best in scope. Should we put "bandstand" in parentheses? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    XRay talk on 2020-09-18 08:09 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Former observatory in Münster, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany
    Used in:
    de:Alte Sternwarte (Münster), wikidata:Q53513403

      Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:14, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Palauenc05 (talk) on 2020-09-18 08:55 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Coat of arms (1653) of Wolfgang Friedrich von Koppenstein in Esch (Germany)
    •   Support Good image, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 13:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Palauenc05 (talk) on 2020-09-18 10:12 (UTC)
    Scope:
    50 Pfennig "Notgeld" banknote of Eisenach (1921), RV: Luther translates the New Testament
    Used in:
    Money of Germany
    •   Support Useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 12:57, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Jaqen (talk) on 2020-09-18 14:01 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Francesco Pannofino
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2020-06-22 15:28 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Detail polder mill Zwaantje, Nijemirdum National monument.
    •   Comment Can you further document in the images notes what this mechanical device is and what it is used for. It looks like a structure tensioning device to help stabilize the mill when the windmill rotor blades are turning but perhaps it has another purpose. Just curious... --GRDN711 (talk) 04:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Answer: with this device you turn the mill to the wind. So that the mill optimally catches the wind from whatever direction the wind comes.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    •   Support Useful and well photographed detail to support mill image, also is also a VI. --GRDN711 (talk) 14:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    •   Comment@GRDN711: I changed "nominated" to "supported". Please confirm that this is what you meant? Martinvl (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    •   Comment@Martinvl: Thank you for changing this nomination to the correct status. I usually remember but... --GRDN711 (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 08:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    GRDN711 (talk) on 2020-08-25 01:57 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Fram (ship, 2007) - IMO 9370018 - frontal view
    Reason:
    Best frontal view of this expedition ship. -- GRDN711 (talk)
    •   Info This image is being re-nominated for VI from MVR, with a revised scope that incorporates frontal view. --GRDN711 (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    •   Support no problem now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 08:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2020-09-18 20:02 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Leasowe railway station
    Used in:
    Wikidata:Q3441748
    Reason:
    Better viewed from above, I feel. -- Rodhullandemu (talk)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Ezarateesteban on 2020-09-19 00:02 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Ruth Bader Ginsburg

      Support --Andrei (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-09-19 04:37 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Église Saint Jean-Baptiste de Bessières, France - Le monument aux morts (The war memorial)
    •   Support Useful & used.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-09-19 04:38 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Affiche pour le papier à cigarette JOB - Jane Atché - Musée du Pays rabastinois (Poster for JOB cigarette paper)
    •   Best in Scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-09-19 04:46 (UTC)
    Scope:
    L'enlèvement d'Europe by Jean-Baptiste Féret - Collection Motais de Narbonne ( The Rape of Europa )
    •   Support Useful & used.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Jaqen (talk) on 2020-09-19 07:44 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Teresa Ciabatti
    Used in:
    it:Teresa Ciabatti, it:q:Teresa Ciabatti, d:Q3984277
    Reason:
    Best in scope imho. -- Jaqen (talk)
    •   Best in Scope It's a shame she's facing away from the camera though. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
    •   Support per Percival. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Martinvl (talk) on 2020-09-19 11:23 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Aveling and Porter Class R10 Steamroller
    •   Support Beautiful good image, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Andrei (talk) on 2020-09-19 11:39 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Jonathan Safran Foer
    Used in:
    numerous
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Andrei (talk) on 2020-09-19 11:41 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Joshua Foer
    Used in:
    en wiki
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Famberhorst (talk) on 2020-09-19 15:43 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Anemone hupehensis Anemone 'Eugenie' Flower bud.
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2020-09-19 16:17 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Windsor Building, Liverpool
    Used in:
    Wikidata:Q26544750
    Open for review.
     
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    —Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2020-09-19 21:54 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Exterior of Baccarat Hotel and Residences
    Open for review.
     
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    —Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2020-09-19 23:14 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Fuller Building, New York
    Open for review.
     
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-09-20 05:25 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Église Saint Jean-Baptiste de Bessières, France - Chapelle des fonts baptismaux (Baptismal font chapel)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-09-20 05:26 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Autoportrait au chapeau de vert - Jane Atché - Musée du Pays rabastinois (Self-portrait with a green hat)

      Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 06:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

    Open for review.
     
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-09-20 05:29 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Église Saint-Martin de Buzet-sur-Tarn - Le maître-autel neo-gothique
    Open for review.
     
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Llez (talk) on 2020-09-20 05:57 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Sinum perspectivum (White Baby Ear Snail), shell
    Open for review.
     
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Jaqen (talk) on 2020-09-20 08:37 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Filippo Nogarin
    Reason:
    Only in scope. -- Jaqen (talk)
    Open for review.


    Pending Most valued review candidatesEdit

    Amy JacksonEdit

       
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Yjenith (talk) on 2012-03-11 23:25 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Amy Jackson
    •   Oppose Copyrighted, no evidence of permission, so I am nominating for deletion. (Also, not geocoded!) cmadler (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
    •   Comment This photograph is released under creative commons Share like 3.0 license. The more appropriate copyright tag is added. Also geocoded for further review. --Yjenith (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Now   Support cmadler (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
    •   Comment Who is this girl actually?--MrPanyGoff 20:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
    • This link doesn't helps a lot... I tend to oppose even I feel this nomination as some kind of insult.--MrPanyGoff 21:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
    •   Info She is essentially a Bollywood actress. Article seems acceptable in en:WP (and 3 other WP), see en:Amy Jackson. --Myrabella (talk) 07:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
    • She is essentially a beauty pageant titleholder and not an actress at all. Since 2010 she just has tried to launch an actress career. There are thousands of girls like her. It seems that we have to place all of them in one group together with Sophia Loren, Gérard Philipe, Michel Piccoli, Jeremy Irons, Robert De Niro, Charles Chaplin, Claude Monet... Shame on all of us... We do nothing here. Alas, we have no choice since we work under the dictate of the crowd. Unfortunately, from a long time many articles in wikipedia cannot be used for reference at all. These articles can be marked for deletion.--MrPanyGoff 09:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Actually, this nomination seems quite promotional, linked with this new movie release: en:Ekk Deewana Tha where she has the leading female role. --Myrabella (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
    Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
    promoted. MrPanyGoff 22:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

      Comment Because of the two VI in this scope I open this MVR. This photo here is the initial VI.--MrPanyGoff 08:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

    •   Support OK, this one is better. Yann (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
      •   Comment but you can't even see her face properly cause she is not looking at the camera, the crop is unfortunate cause the top of her head is missing,the blur is excessive with parts of her hair and right shoulder being blured. Just wanna know why you think this is better so atleast I can be clear about the criteria for a picture being VI.Boseritwik (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
    •   Support I still support this one as best in scope and meeting all criteria. Certainly the edges of her hair and right shoulder are blurred, but her face is in focus at a high resolution. Also important to the present comparison, in the other image her forehead, chin, and cheeks are washed out by the flash/glare. cmadler (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
    Scores: 
    1. Amy jackson.jpg: +2 (current VI within same scope) <--
    2. Amy Jackson attends press conference for 'Thaandavam' at London 04.jpg: +0 (second VI within same scope) <--
    =>
    File:Amy jackson.jpg: Promoted.
    File:Amy Jackson attends press conference for 'Thaandavam' at London 04.jpg: Declined.
    --MrPanyGoff 05:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
    
    •   Info Opening MVR. The other nomination can be found here. pandakekok9 08:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
    •   Support - The other one has higher resolution, but we're supposed to judge the photos at review size, and in review size, this photo is much bigger. I also prefer the background, but that could be because I have sore eyes tonight. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
    Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    pandakekok9 on 2020-04-04 08:38 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Amy Jackson
    Reason:
    Compared to the current VI, I think this photo represents the scope better, because it has a higher resolution. And IMO, the subject facing the camera is more valuable. -- pandakekok9

      Comment I get a failure message about the image file containing errors if I try to open the full-resolution image in Firefox. --Bobulous (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
      Comment Ignore my last comment; a machine reboot and a forced page refresh caused it to finally load the image without error. Must have been a bad download followed by a stubborn local cache. --Bobulous ( talk) 20:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

    •   Support higher resolution & facing the camera --Arne (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
    •   Oppose per my remarks on the other one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
    •   Comment a crop of this one to exclude some of her body would split the difference and be best, imo. Buidhe (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Buidhe: What do you think of this crop? pandakekok9 06:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
    •   Support per Arne. --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
    Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

    Theresa May, portrait photographEdit

       
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Yann (talk) on 2017-02-19 18:52 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Theresa May, portrait photograph
    Reason:
    UK Prime Minister. Best image, much better quality than her official portrait. Studio shot, so not geocoded. Used on many projects. -- Yann (talk)

      Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

    Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
    promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

    MVR: see also Commons:Valued image candidates/Theresa May (2015) (cropped).jpg

    Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    AlbanGeller (talk) on 2020-06-01 12:57 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Theresa May in 2015, portrait photograph
    Used in:
    Theresa May
    Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

    Oryx gazellaEdit

       
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Lycaon (talk) on 2009-02-12 16:54 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Oryx gazella (Gemsbok)
    Used in:
    en:Gemsbok, nl:Gemsbok, simple:Gemsbok, uk:Орікс
    •   Support Pose is less interesting, but I think the animal is better shown than on the previously nominated picture. --Eusebius (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
    Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
    promoted. Lycaon (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
    Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2020-06-22 08:00 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Oryx gazella (Gemsbok) male
    Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


    To initiate a most valued review, please go to the dedicated MVR sub page.
    Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache

    All open candidates in an MVR have to have their status set as "discussed" while the review is ongoing. Only when all candidates are due for closure can the MVR be closed.

    Refer to Most valued review, the promotion rules and the instructions for closure for details.

    Pending valued image set candidatesEdit

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