Commons:Valued image candidates

(Redirected from Commons:VIC)

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.

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 Scope is the scope of both images, and candidate1.jpg and candidate2.jpg are 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
48,471 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
43,354 (89.4%) 
Undecided
  
2,749 (5.7%) 
Declined
  
2,368 (4.9%) 


New valued image nominationsEdit

   
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2021-08-21 15:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Mécanisme du moulin de Riele, 18th-century windmill in Wormhout
Used in:
Moulin de Riele
  •   Support Interesting and useful (but very red and yellow) -- Spurzem (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2022-06-24 04:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Sculptures in Muiden Muiden, house on Herengracht (sculpture in perspective)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
DeMéxicoConAmor (talk) on 2022-06-26 19:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Images of Pina Pellicer
Used in:
Many, see global usage
  •   Neutral I believe the one on the right
     
    this one
    captures her look the best out of all of the category. She had very strong features. "Chiseled" I believe is the word. The nom hides that. Try an internet image search and scroll down a few rows. ~ R.T.G 20:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose It seems not the best within the category. --A1Cafel (talk) 11:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Declined if the last vote was added no later than 21:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2022-06-25 04:39 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Nicolaas (Muiden) Sculpture.
  •   Comment the artist and title please. Charlesjsharp (talk) 16:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Massimo510 (talk) on 2022-06-25 7:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Breviceps gibbosus (Cape rain frog) - South Africa
Used in:
See global usage
Reason:
Used not only in the page for its own species but also in the page for its family -- Massimo510 (talk)

  Comment Per COM:VIS, there are domain-specific scope guidelines for animals, including amphibians, advising that the scope be in the form of scientific name (vernacular name), sub-scope. Please revise. --GRDN711 (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

  •   Comment The scope is now acceptable but it requires a geocoding of the image in the caption. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk)
    •   Comment ok i have a added a caption to the image showing the location let me know if it is acceptable.Massimo510 (talk)

talk]])talk]]) 05:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  •   Comment This nomination is appropriate for VI consideration but I agree with Archaeodontosaurus that GPS coordinates should be added to the image description per COM:VICR(5). --GRDN711 (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
View opposition
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-06-25 16:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Euploea modesta modesta (Plain blue crow) showing part of upperside of wing

  Oppose The scope "part of ..." is imprecise. Part of the wing is obscured by the leaves and flowers. --Tagooty (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Result: 0 support, 1 oppose =>
declined. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2022-06-25 16:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Cheminée du bailliage (Aire-sur-la-Lys), France.
Open for review.
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
~ R.T.G on 2022-06-26 05:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Lava dome fountains - Kīlauea
Used in:
Global: es:Fuente de lava fr:Fontaine de lave fr:Mauna Ulu pt:Fonte de lava Commons: Kīlauea Hawaii hotspot
Reason:
I believe this is a unique image on the Commons. It has some quality issues but it is a wonderful image, unreal. 1960s -- ~ R.T.G
  •   Comment The scope is now acceptable but it requires a geocoding of the image in the caption.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
  Done ~ R.T.G 13:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-06-26 05:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Hercule et les bœufs de Géryon (Hercules and the Cattle of Geryon) - Musée Saint-Raymond Toulouse

  Support Best in scope and used. --Tagooty (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-06-26 05:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Erinnyis oenotrus specimen- female dorsal

  Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 06:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-06-26 05:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Garotte - Eugenio Lucas y Velasquez - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen
  •   Best in Scope, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 20:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support, but the title should be in Spanish with English in parentheses. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Done The term is the same for English... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment Muy bueno, gracias. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2022-06-26 06:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Gloripallium pallium (Royal Cloak Scallop), right valve

  Support Best in scope and used. --Tagooty (talk) 15:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
FredD (talk) on 2022-06-26 10:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Red steamed bun jelly (Periphyllopsis braueri)
Reason:
Amazing professional picture of an extremely rare animal. -- FredD (talk)

  Support Best is scope and used. Not geocoded, but the location Gulf of Alaska is mentioned in the description. --Tagooty (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Charlesjsharp How can you geocode a drifting animal in the abyss of the open sea at >2000m deep ? Geocoding is not always possible neither relevant... FredD (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Easy and relevant. Geocode using one or two decimal places. You know roughly where you were. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Ok... Then feel free to add any rough gps coordinates in the Gulf of Alaska you will find satisfactory. Here's the place. FredD (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Only pending geocoding. Please don't think I am being difficult for the sake of it, but you need to add the coordinates. I've had many cropped images rejected here, but I would support this one. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Splendid no problem. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Charles and COM:VICR(5). --GRDN711 (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Ok, I just added inaccurate and useless random GPS coordinates. I'm wondering how you do when somebody proposes a picture of the sun as VI (and there are several)... FredD (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Sufficient IMO. --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2022-06-26 15:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Flemish retable of Église Saint-Germain-l'Auxerrois de Paris.
Open for review.
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2022-06-26 06:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Fish-eye view of Mysore Junction railway station building, Mysuru, India
Used in:
en:Mysuru Junction railway stationwikidata:Q98829640
  Done Thank you. --Tagooty (talk) 05:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2022-06-26 06:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Mysore railway station clock tower, Mysuru, India
Used in:
wikidata:Q112698970en:Transport in Mysore
Reason:
Shows the full clock tower in its current colouring --Tagooty (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC) -- Tagooty (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2022-06-26 08:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Life is a Journey by Arun Yogiraj -- Mysore Junction railway station, India
Used in:
en:Mysuru Junction railway stationwikidata:Q112726146
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2022-06-26 15:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Hôtel de Mayenne, Paris.
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 21:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
GRDN711 (talk) on 2022-06-27 01:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Reykjavík Norðurgarði (North Mole) Lighthouse (L4506)
Reason:
I like the snowy Mount Esja in this image but feel the nominated image above is a better display of the lighthouse (fisher person is an extra). -- GRDN711 (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2022-06-27 04:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Muiden Amsterdamsepoort bridge over the Singelgracht. (East side.)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-06-27 04:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Erinnyis oenotrus specimen - female ventral
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-06-27 05:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Autorretrato de Goya (Self-portrait by Goya) - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen
  •   Best in Scope, useful and very often used -- Spurzem (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-06-27 05:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Sedum spathulifolium (yellow stonecrop) - Habitus
  •   Support, good image in beautiful composition, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 11:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2022-06-27 08:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Calvaire de Rumes, Southeast side.
Used in:
fr: Rumes fr: Liste du patrimoine immobilier classé de Rumes
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2022-06-27 08:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Courtyard of Church Sant Esteve in Cantallops, Spain.
  •   Best in Scope, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 10:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Spurzem (talk) on 2022-06-27 11:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Pendulum regulator, made by Kieninger, around 1999/2000
Reason:
Once again I'm putting up a picture for discussion because it's probably the only one of a Kieninger clock in the Commons. -- Spurzem (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-06-27 14:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Cinnyris jugularis flammaxillaris (Olive-backed sunbird) male in eclipse plumage

  Comment. I see the bird on this file better. Here is not enough contrast between main object and background. -- Spurzem (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  •   Support This is the only image in the CAT with eclipse plumage (black feathers on breast) and is good enough for VI. --Tagooty (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-06-27 15:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Haliastur indus intermedius (Brahminy kite) in flight

  Question The scope has 4 hires images that appear similar in review size, 2 by Charlesjsharp and 2 by Thomas Fuhrmann. Why is the nominated imaged most valued? --Tagooty (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

If they all look similar in review size, view in larger size and you will see that the Thomas Fuhrmann images are softer and noisier and the birds have damaged/ruffled feathers. The black chest feathers are less distinct. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks for the explanation. Best in scope. --Tagooty (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-06-27 15:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Sterna sumatrana sumatrana (Black-naped terns) pair, showing beak and nape
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
 Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) on 2022-06-27 18:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Luis Aguilar
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
 Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) on 2022-06-27 18:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Lola Beltrán
Used in:
Category:Lola Beltrán
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
 Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) on 2022-06-27 18:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Jorge Negrete
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
 Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) on 2022-06-27 18:57 (UTC)
Scope:
José Alfredo Jiménez
  •   Support Looks most useful to me. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-06-27 20:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Niltava grandis (Large niltava) on nest
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2022-06-27 21:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Epitaph (1320) at church Sant Esteve in Cantallops, Spain.
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2022-06-28 04:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Groote Zeesluis (Muiden) North Northeast side. (Left part of the complex.)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-06-28 04:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Erinnyis alope specimen - male dorsal

  Support Best in scope and used. --Tagooty (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-06-28 04:54 (UTC)
Scope:
El globo (the Balloon) Francisco de Goya - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-06-28 04:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Hôtel d'Estrades, hôtel de Vaurs et hôtel de Vergès - façades place du Dr Esquirol
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2022-06-28 09:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Persian windmills (type), Southeast side (Terdeghem), France

  Support Best in scope.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2022-06-28 10:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Mill governor in Steenmeulen windmill, Terdeghem.- France

  Comment The Category:Mill governors linked in the scope is too broad. Will be useful to create a CAT for this particular location or type/vintage of governor. --Tagooty (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  • @Tagooty:   Done clarification "Mill governors in France". Is it correct? . Best regards, --Pierre André (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
  Comment I've now done some reading on mill governors. They are Centrifugal governors. Such governors are also used in steam engines, clocks, etc. Is the design of centrifugal governors used in mills different from other uses? Did French mills use a design different from mills in Netherlands and other countries? Are these governors of a particular model made by one manufacturer? The scope will depend on the answers to these questions. I request others to give their opinions. --Tagooty (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
A1Cafel (talk) on 2022-06-28 11:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Presidential portrait of Petro Poroshenko
Used in:
Petro Poroshenko
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2022-06-28 14:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Volkswagen Polo VI GTI (2021) - left front view
Used in:
de:VW Polo VI, en:Volkswagen Polo
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2022-06-28 15:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Cog wheels in Steenmeulen windmill, Terdeghem.- France
  • scope too vague - need to specify what type of mill. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2022-06-28 15:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Heracleum sphondylium Flower bud.
  •   Comment is Heracleum sphondylium. It would be good to modify the caption, put the image in the right category and modify the scope... Beautiful image.   --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Done. I hope. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
 Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) on 2022-06-29 02:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Jorge Negrete
  •   Best in Scope, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2022-06-29 04:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Muiderslot. (detail) tower, south south west side.
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-06-29 04:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Hercule et les Pommes d'Or des Hespérides (Hercules and the Golden Apples of the Hesperides) - Musée Saint-Raymond Toulouse
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-06-29 04:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Erinnyis alope specimen - male ventral
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-06-29 04:49 (UTC)
Scope:
La misa de parida por Francisco de Goya (Churching of women) - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen

Birth mass? Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

  •   Best in Scope for me, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Churching of women that's the right term. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks; It looked like a mass, but isn't. Charlesjsharp (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-06-30 10:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Atrophaneura coon doubledayi (Common clubtail) male underside
Reason:
new nom but Wikipedia article was moved from Atrophaneura coon to Losaria coon in 2012 and I cannot move it back. Can you help please Archaeodontosaurus? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC) -- Charlesjsharp (talk)
  •   Support prefect now. The other nomination can be marked for deletion by an administrator. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-06-29 11:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Neptis hylas papaja (Common sailor) underside
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-06-29 11:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Eurema simulatrix tecmessa (Hill grass yellow) underside

what is the problem please? Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Spurzem (talk) on 2022-06-29 12:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Water tender based on Magirus-Deutz Rundhauber, built in 1959
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
 Aurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) on 2022-06-29 16:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Agustín Lara
  •   Support Given the degree of matgnification in this extracted image, quality is very good. --GRDN711 (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Question Whose signature is on the photo? Is it a problem? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2022-06-29 19:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Lexus RX 350 L (GGL21/GGL26) - facelift - left rear view
Used in:
de:Lexus RX, en:Lexus RX
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2022-06-29 19:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Maxus Deliver 9 - left front view
Used in:
pl:Maxus V90
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2022-06-30 04:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Grote- of Nicolaaskerk, Muiden (Church tower, west side.)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-06-30 04:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Erinnyis ello ello specimen - female dorsal
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-06-30 04:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Presentation de Jésus au Temple (Presentation of Jesus in the Temple) by Jean André - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen
  •   Support Very good, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-06-30 04:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint-Caprais Cathedral - Ceiling of the crossing of the transept - Agen, Lot-et-Garonne, France.
  •   Support. Useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Spurzem (talk) on 2022-06-30 11:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Water tender based on Mercedes-Benz LK 917 by Ziegler in 1988, front and right side

  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-06-29 11:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Euploea algea menetriesii (Long-branded blue crow) dorsal
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-06-29 12:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Caleta roxus pothus (Straight pierrot) underside
  •   Support Useful and used. --GRDN711 (talk) 16:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-06-30 10:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Appias olferna olferna (Striped albatross) female underside
Reason:
all images in parent category Appias olferna are likely Appias olferna olferna too -- Charlesjsharp (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2022-06-30 17:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Maybach 62 S Landaulet - right rear view
Used in:
de:Maybach 57 und 62, de:Cabriolimousine, de:Maybach-Manufaktur
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2022-06-30 18:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Immeuble, 31, 33, 35, 39, 41 rue d'Anjou (Versailles)
Open for review.



Pending Most valued review candidatesEdit

Yellow-wattled lapwingEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-01-08 09:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Vanellus malabaricus (Yellow-wattled lapwing)

  Done sorry. Charles (talk) 11:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 21:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-05-16 13:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Vanellus malabaricus (Yellow-wattled lapwing)
  •   Comment I'm puzzled by this nomination. The other photo shows the legs, tail and structure of the wings better at review size, doesn't it? What's the advantage of this photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   I withdraw my nomination I think you're right. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 21:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Bittium glareosum, shellEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2014-09-04 05:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Bittium glareosum, Shell

  Best in Scope --LivioAndronico talk 08:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Generally less detailed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 21:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2022-06-05 07:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Bittium glareosum, shell
Reason:
This is a much better preserved specimen --Llez (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC) -- Llez (talk)
  •   Support More details. But do the differences in color reflect differences in subspecies? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
    •   Info There are no accepted subspecies (see [1]) --Llez (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support per nom. --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Question I don't understand the colour difference. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
    •   Info There are many species with variable colour and/or pattern, see for example here, here, here, here, here (in the latter example not only the same species but the same population, collected in an area of a few square meters), and many more. --Llez (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 21:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Porta NigraEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Berthold Werner (talk) on 2022-06-15 02:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Porta Nigra
Used in:
de:Porta Nigra, en:Porta Nigra, fr:Porta Nigra ...
  •   Question Is there any reason why this image is more valuable for illustrating the subject than, say, Image:Trier, Porta Nigra cityside.jpg? I'm not trying to be facetious--I'm simply wondering if there's a particular reason why an image of the north side is more valuable than one of the south. --jonny-mt 13:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
    • First of all I didn't think to select a own valued image for each side. Perhaps you're right. But the north side is the side the romans build to impress the Germanic tribes so it's a kind of "main side" and more impressing. Most pictures in books and postcards show the north side. But as a "UNESCO World Heritage Site" the Porta Nigra may got a valued image for each side. --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Have you considered doing a series, then? I like this shot and agree that it's valuable, but since I'm having a hard time gauging its value relative to other similar pictures on Commons I'm   Neutral for the time being. I'd certainly be willing to support a series showing various angles of this World Heritage Site, though. --jonny-mt 15:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree with the nominator that this side of the structure is the most relevant, and I find the scope relevant as a stand-alone image. There are other photos on Commons taken from this side, but I think the lightning conditions on this candidate is better than on competing images and the crop is good. Other criteria check out for me too, so its a support from my side. Concerning a set nomination, I have my reservations unless it is taken as a series on the same day, at the same distance, such that it constitutes a coherent set. Difficult however, as the lightning conditions will never be good at all sides at the same time of day. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 1 neutral
=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per comments on the other photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 21:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Wolf im Wald on 2022-06-15 02:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Porta Nigra
Reason:
good perspective and very high sharpness IMO -- Wolf im Wald

  super! --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
  Oppose There is already an existing VI for this scope of the Porta Nigra. This nomination should be withdrawn and re-nominated in MVR if the nominator wishes to contest the existing VI. --GRDN711 (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  Info Restarted the nomination because of existing VI. Please vote below. -- Wolf im Wald 02:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  •   Support I prefer this one, because there are no cars in the foreground. --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support Agree with Palauenc05. Without cars in the foreground makes this image more valuable. --GRDN711 (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support It also lacks competition from the clouds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 21:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

RömerEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Der Wolf im Wald (talk) on 2022-06-15 02:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Römer (Frankfurt am Main)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 12:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
  •   Oppose as not the whole of the building per the other nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 21:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Wolf im Wald on 2022-06-15 02:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Römer (Frankfurt am Main)
Reason:
good perspective, nice light and good overall quality IMO -- Wolf im Wald
  •   Support. This image is valuable and useful too for me. But I like your other image of the Römer with front view still better. Perhaps you should spezify the scope. -- Spurzem (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Comment Hallo Lothar, ich antworte dir mal auf Deutsch. Das Problem ist, dass auch die beiden nicht rötlichen Gebäudeteile rechts im Bild zum Römer gehören. Das wusste ich damals nicht, als ich das alte Bild geschossen habe. Daher denke ich, dass das neue Bild anschaulicher ist und das alte sollte seine VI-Auszeichnung verlieren. Am Scope sollte daher wohl nichts verändert werden. Grüße und danke für dein Pro! :-) -- Wolf im Wald 19:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Info Restarted the nomination because of existing VI. Please vote below. -- Wolf im Wald 02:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Ich verstehe den Sinn des Manövers nicht. Mir gefallen beide Bilder gut, und da sie aus unterschiedlichen Blickwinkeln aufgenommen sind, könnten beide ausgezeichnet werden. Aber mir ist es egal; ich verstehe sowieso nicht, nach welchen Kriterien hier bewertet wird, zumal es von heute auf morgen anders sein kann. Viele Grüße -- Spurzem (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Ich finde das andere Bild bietet keinen Mehrwert und da es ohnehin technisch veraltet und fotografisch schlechter ist, braucht es auch keine Auszeichnung. Grüße -- Wolf im Wald 01:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Info The building is not fully represented in the old photo because it consists of 5 parts and the two on the right, which look slightly different in color, are cut off. In addition, the old picture does not show very well that the building facade has a bend on the left side between the first and the 2nd part of building near the blue EU flag (see [2]). -- Wolf im Wald 01:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
  •   Support per "Info" above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 21:03, 28 June 2022 (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.