Open main menu

Commons:Valued image candidates

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.

Contents

You can submit new nominations starting on COM:VIC.

Pending valued image candidatesEdit

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache
32,839 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
29,186 (88.9%) 
Undecided
  
1,659 (5.1%) 
Declined
  
1,994 (6.1%) 



New valued image nominationsEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Christopher Fynn (talk)) on 2018-10-16 08:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Penor Rinpoche portrait
Used in:
wmde:Pelyül, wmfi:Tiibetiläiset, wmhi:नाम्ड्रोल्लिङ, wmhi:पद्म_नोर्बु_रिन्पोछे, 티베트족, wmfr:Penor Rinpoché, w:Penor_Rinpoche, 貝諾法王, पद्म_नोर्बु_रिन्पोछे
  •   Comment Must connect the scope to the category that contains the image --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! - done now Christopher Fynn (talk)) 10:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 20:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Yann (talk) on 2018-10-17 06:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Bruno Doucey
Reason:
French poet and editor. Geolocated. Featured picture. -- Yann (talk)
  • That file is a copyright violation. It deleted it. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

  Support Best in scope now. Skimel (talk) 16:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 20:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Boothsift (talk) on 2018-10-18 01:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Musa plant with bananas
  •   Comment - The location of a banana tree is not distinguishable by sight and therefore not a useful parameter for the scope. A useful scope would be the variety of banana plant, as identified with its Latin and English names, but if you want to nominate this as a Valued Image for that scope, make sure it is really the photo you consider best in that scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • And a red link doesn't help, either. You have to link to an existing Commons category. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:10, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Ezarateesteban on 2018-10-18 01:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Logo of Club Sportivo Patria
Open for review.
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-10-19 05:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Aellopos clavipes mounted specimen male ventral

Best in scope. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-10-19 08:09 (UTC)
Scope:
15 Hope Street, Liverpool
Used in:
en:Listed buildings in Liverpool-L1
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 20:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-10-19 08:20 (UTC)
Scope:
17 & 19 Hope Street, Liverpool
Used in:
en:Grade II listed buildings in Liverpool-L1
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 20:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-10-19 08:30 (UTC)
Scope:
21 Hope Street, Liverpool
Used in:
en:Grade II listed buildings in Liverpool-L1
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 20:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-10-19 08:41 (UTC)
Scope:
23 Hope Street, Liverpool
Used in:
en:Grade II listed buildings in Liverpool-L1
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 20:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-10-18 21:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Hope Street, Liverpool : 25 - 29A
Used in:
en:Grade II listed buildings in Liverpool-L1
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 20:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Peulle (talk) on 2018-10-19 11:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Front facade of the Hat museum in Lindenberg, Germany.
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 20:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2018-10-19 19:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Abida secale ssp. secale, shell

  Support Useful file.--Peulle (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 20:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-10-19 20:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Liverpool Medical Institution - exterior views
Used in:
en:Liverpool Medical Institution, en:Clark Rampling, Q15242533
Reason:
No vehicles or pedestrians in the way, high resolution -- Rodhullandemu (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 20:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Boothsift (talk) on 2018-10-20 01:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Geranium psilostemon up close
  •   Comment Must connect the scope to the category that contains the image. The scope is not properly formatted. The binomial name should be in italics followed by the english common name in parenthesis. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose You must ask for help for identification. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
@Archaeodontosaurus: Any suggestions on who to ask? --Boothsift (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Alas no I am not competent in botany. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-10-20 04:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Aellopos clavipes mounted specimen female dorsal

  Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-10-20 04:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of the Eremitani (Padua), Cappella Ovetari - stories of St. James

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-10-20 04:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Grand Nu by Roger de La Fresnaye, Fondation Bemberg Toulouse

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Yann (talk) on 2018-10-20 09:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Erithacus rubecula rubecula (European robin)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2018-10-20 12:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Peugeot Type 174
Used in:
ar:بيجو 10, de:Peugeot, de:Peugeot Typ 174, en:Peugeot Type 174, fr:Peugeot Type 174, it:Peugeot Type 174, sr:Пежо тип 174, uk:Peugeot, wikidata:Q916765
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2018-10-20 15:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Metula cumingi (Cuming's Metula), shell

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2018-10-20 19:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Marian Bublewicz i Janusz Kulig memorial in Walim
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2018-10-20 20:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Bystrzyca (river), in Jugowice
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2018-10-20 20:05 (UTC)
Scope:
18 Górna Street in Jugowice, exposure from W
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2018-10-20 20:08 (UTC)
Scope:
18 Górna Street in Jugowice, exposure from S
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2018-10-20 20:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Góry Sowie, Garncarz
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Martinvl (talk) on 2018-10-20 19:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Exposed chimney flue, Middleham Castle
Used in:
Reason:
Educational in nature as it is effectively a cutaway image of a chimney showing the flue construction. -- Martinvl (talk)

  Support Best in scope, educational, geolocalized and with notes. Skimel (talk) 10:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-10-21 04:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Aellopos clavipes mounted specimen female ventral

  Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 17:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-10-21 04:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Giardino Savorgnan (Venice) the view to the southeast from the basin.

  Comment There is CA and perspective problems. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  •   Done Absolutely true. Both points have been corrected. Thanks... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-10-21 04:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Élégante à la robe bleu by Giovanni Boldini, Fondation Bemberg, Toulouse

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jaqen (talk) on 2018-10-21 06:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Valentina Favazza
Used in:
en:Valentina Favazza, it:Valentina Favazza, it:q:Valentina Favazza, d:Q21418862

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2018-10-21 07:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Haus "Fetzenreich" Trier, Germany (view East).
Used in:
de:Liste der Kulturdenkmäler in Trier-Kernstadt/Straßen Q bis Z

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
T.Bednarz (talk) on 2018-10-21 07:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Milan Baroš (2018)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2018-10-21 19:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Góry Sowie, Dziczek
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2018-10-21 19:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Góry Sowie, Garbiec and Golec
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2018-10-21 19:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Góry Sowie, Gontowa
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2018-10-21 19:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Seyler mortuary chapel in Walim
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2018-10-21 19:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Maximilian Kolbe church in Rzeczka, exposure from E
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-10-21 21:59 (UTC)
Scope:
English Martyrs Church, Wallasey
Used in:
See global usage
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-10-22 05:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Aellopos tantalus mounted specimen male dorsal

  Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-10-22 05:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Capitole de Toulouse, La fidélité, by Paul Gervais

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-10-22 05:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Paris, le pont des Arts by Stanislas Lépine, Fondation Bemberg Toulouse

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nirmal Dulal (talk) on 2018-10-22 06:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Affect of poverty in Education in Nepal
Reason:
Its showing affect of Poverty in Education in Nepal. -- Nirmal Dulal (talk)

  Oppose The scope is too broad, and you have actually two different scopes. How are children reading a book more representative of poverty in Nepal than, say, a photograph of a homeless man, or of a houshold? Skimel (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

@Skimel: I think you didn't check the reason, this picture showing affect of Poverty in Education in Nepal. this is not a picture of homeless people, its a picture of some poor children reading used books in their home. Can you suggest me better scope for this? Nirmal Dulal (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support I think the picture shows the relevant scope of poverty as the enthusiast childrens are studying the used books despite of having purchasising capacity - Nabin K. Sapkota (talk) 04:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The idea is generous but Skimel is right --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
@Archaeodontosaurus: - If you think The scope is too broad then Can you suggest better scope for this? I can correct it. - Nirmal Dulal (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  Comment The images of this type are very difficult to label for VI. The specificity of the scope is a real problem. There are many images of this type in COMMNONS distributed in several categories. Why is this one more emblematic than the others? For my part I do not believe that we can label it but the discussion is open to other points of view and ideas. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:35, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

  Done I made little change in scope. - Nirmal Dulal (talk) 07:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

  •   Oppose - Sorry, it's not obvious to a viewer that the children are poor. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Even if the children are in a poor household, they appear to be having a broad education - if you look carefully, the book that they are reading depicts the Star of David. Martinvl (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
this sign called Shatkona in Nepal. - Nirmal Dulal (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Nirmal Dulal (talk) on 2018-10-22 06:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Chilancho
Reason:
Chilancho, at Kirtipur (Estd. in 1515 AD by Jagatpal Varma). -- Nirmal Dulal (talk)
  •   Comment The category is plethoric, it would be good to cut it into several categories. The image is tilted it could be straightened. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  Done - Corrected. Thanks ! - Nirmal Dulal (talk) 06:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
The scope should be restricted to this monument. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  Done - I corrected the scope. Thanks! - Nirmal Dulal (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tournasol7 (talk) on 2018-10-22 08:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Southern exposure of the Saint Stephen church of Cheverny
Used in:
fr:Cheverny, pl:Cheverny

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 10:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Adámoz (talk) on 2018-10-22 16:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Strakonický dudák (statue)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2018-10-22 17:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Tutufa rubeta (Ruddy Frog Snail), shell, brown form

  Support useful. Charles (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-10-22 17:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Procavia capensis (Rock hyrax)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2018-10-22 21:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Crucifixion group in Jugów
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2018-10-22 21:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Maximilian Kolbe church in Rzeczka, exposure from S
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2018-10-22 21:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Exaltation of the Holy Cross church in Przygórze, exposure from S
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2018-10-22 21:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint Barbara church in Walim, exposure from S
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2018-10-22 21:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint Barbara church in Walim, portal
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tournasol7 (talk) on 2018-10-22 21:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Eastern facade of the town hall of Marcillac-Vallon
Used in:
fr:Marcillac-Vallon
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-10-23 05:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Aellopos tantalus mounted scepimen male ventral
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-10-23 05:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Rue Tolosane, No. 10 building of the eighteenth.
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-10-23 05:06 (UTC)
Scope:
The Crucifixion of St. Eulalia of Barcelona in Back choir of the Cathedral of Barcelona
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Nirmal Dulal (talk) on 2018-10-23 09:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Brides of Nepal
Used in:
  •   Oppose - This shows a picture of a bride only, not a wedding. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  •   Done - Corrected. Nirmal Dulal (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2018 (UTC)   Support now that the scope has been updated, the image is relevant and useful. Skimel (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Adámoz (talk) on 2018-10-23 10:56 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Indian Scout
    Open for review.
     
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Yann (talk) on 2018-10-23 13:18 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Two Sisters (On the Terrace), by Pierre-Auguste Renoir
    Reason:
    Very high resolution of a famous painting. Featured picture, geolocated. -- Yann (talk)
    Open for review.
     
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2018-10-23 15:15 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Petra Boshart Hortus Haren. "Wording", by Petra Boshart.
    Open for review.
     
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2018-10-23 16:57 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Rosa 'Sommerwind' Flower.
    Open for review.
     
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Yann (talk) on 2018-10-23 17:00 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Luncheon of the Boating Party, by Pierre-Auguste Renoir
    Reason:
    Good reproduction of a famous painting. Geolocated. -- Yann (talk)
    Open for review.
     
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Yann (talk) on 2018-10-23 17:17 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Bedroom in Arles, by Vincent van Gogh
    Reason:
    Huge resolution of a famous painting. Featured picture, geolocated. Previous undecided nomination. -- Yann (talk)
    Open for review.
     
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Yann (talk) on 2018-10-23 17:26 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Fatata te Miti, by Paul Gauguin
    Reason:
    Huge resolution of a famous painting. Featured picture, geolocated. -- Yann (talk)
    Open for review.
     
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-10-23 19:22 (UTC)
    Scope:
    3 - 9 Market Street, Birkenhead
    Used in:
    en:Listed buildings in Birkenhead
    Open for review.


    Pending Most valued review candidatesEdit

    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.

    ErechtheumEdit

       

    Pending valued image set candidatesEdit

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