Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

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
31,985 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
28,392 (88.8%) 
Undecided
  
1,629 (5.1%) 
Declined
  
1,964 (6.1%) 



New valued image nominationsEdit

   
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2018-08-11 10:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Ty 3297 in Pairi Daiza Railway (Belgium)

  Comment In my view this image is far better suited for VI purposes than the one that you submitted. If you do decide to submit the alternative image, please include the geographic coordinates of where the photo was taken. Martinvl (talk) 20:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

  • This image is less than 2 MB, it presents the locomotive as a whole. (I included the geographical coordinates of where it was taken, in the description). Personally with my picture, I wanted to highlight the logo and engine of Ty 3297. Regards,--Pierre André (talk) 08:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Adámoz (talk) on 2018-08-11 16:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Tower in Strakonice in the Czech Republic
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2018-08-11 18:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Hosta 'Grand Slam' Inflorescence and flower bud.
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
MB-one (talk) on 2018-08-13 16:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Chevrolet Vectra sedan (Delta platform), rear 3/4 view
Used in:
pt:Chevrolet Vectra
  •   Comment, I think the perspective in the background needs correcting. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment. Besides, the perspective for the car is not good. It hardly shows the actual shape. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 14 August 2018
Scope:
Pseudocoladenia fatua (Ruddy Pied Flat) dorsal

  Question There is a fun mystery. In the category there are two images. They are very similar because it is the same individual, on the same sheet. These are two different authors with the same camera, but one day apart. Is there one author and two accounts? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

  Comment@Archaeodontosaurus: This two images of Ruddy Pied Flat (Pseudocoladenia fatua) are part of the Wiki Loves Butterfly Project shot at passingdang, Dzongu valley, North Sikkim [here] by two WLB Project field photographer Sandip Das and Tamaghna Sengupta who shot the same species at same location but with two different cameras. Sandip Das using NIKON D7000 and Tamaghna Sengupta with Canon EOS 7D Mark II. There was no species category in Commons, hence I am creating the category.--Atudu (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-08-14 05:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Rhagastis olivacea mounted specimen male dorsal
  •   Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 12:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-08-14 05:13 (UTC)
Scope:
The piano of the composer Louis Deffès, Musée du Vieux Toulouse

  Support Useful and used. --MB-one (talk) 10:17, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-08-14 05:14 (UTC)
Scope:
The falconer by Paolo Veronese Fondation Bemberg Toulouse

  Best in scope--Jebulon (talk) 08:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
-- DeFacto (talk). on 2018-08-14 06:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Turner Contemporary gallery, Margate - from the south-west
Used in:
en:Turner Contemporary

  Neutral this one has better quality, but Café patio and west of Turner Contemporary gallery Margate Kent England.jpg has fewer distracting elements (people) in the foreground. --MB-one (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

  Comment, MB-one, for me, the people help to portray the character and popularity of the place. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
  Support Café patio and west of Turner Contemporary gallery Margate Kent England.jpg has a problem of perspective distortion. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:42, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
-- DeFacto (talk). on 2018-08-14 06:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Embracing the Sea (1998) by Jon Buck, Deal Pier
Used in:
en:Deal, Kent

  Support useful and used. --MB-one (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
MB-one (talk) on 2018-08-14 13:37 (UTC)
Scope:
General view of Muttrah Fort
Used in:
ar:حصن مطرح
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Martinvl (talk) on 2018-08-14 14:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Chapman’s Peak Drive near Cape Town
Used in:
Reason:
One of the most spectacular drives in South Africa, passing through a UNESCO World Heritage Site that also hosts part of the annual "Two Oceans" ultramarathons. The sea in this image is part of the Atlantic Ocean while the Indian Ocean is 11 km to the south east of this spot. -- Martinvl (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tournasol7 (talk) on 2018-08-14 16:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Northern facade of the town hall of Autoire
Used in:
fr:Autoire, pl:Autoire
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:34, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2018-08-14 17:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Gerard Heymans Vrijhof 2 in Ferwerd. Birth house of Gerard Heymans (detail).
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-08-14 20:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Lyceum Post Office, Liverpool
Used in:
en:The Lyceum, Liverpool
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2018-08-14 21:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Our Lady Chapel of Penhors, from the south-west.
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2018-08-14 21:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Triumphal Gate of Notre-Dame-de-Penhors Chapel from the North.
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-08-15 04:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Rhagastis olivacea mounted specimen male ventral
  •   Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 12:04, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-08-15 04:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Cathédrale Saint-Étienne de Toulouse, The birth of Saint Stephen by Jean Pechault
  •   Comment Cathédrale Saint-Étienne de Toulouse translates as "Saint Etienne Cathedral of Toulouse", not "from Toulouse", but I think trying to translate the name of a cathedral is an error. Please use the French name of the cathedral. As this seems to be the only photo of the tapestry on Commons, of course it's useful, a valuable image, once the scope is appropriate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Done Thank you for your advice --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Thank you. Valuable, best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-08-15 04:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Zuan Pietro Ghisi by Jacopo Tintoretto Fondation Bemberg Toulouse
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:10, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-08-15 09:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Blackburne House
Used in:
See global usage
  •   Support Useful, used and best in scope. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2018-08-15 09:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Calvary Chapel Notre-Dame-de-Penhors from west.
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-08-15 12:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Hahnemann Hospital, Liverpool
Used in:
en:Liverpool Homeopathic Hospital, en:Grade II listed buildings in Liverpool-L1
  •   Support Useful, used and best in scope. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2018-08-15 13:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Chapel of Our Lady of the Coast Penvins, France (view N).
Used in:
Global usage
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-08-15 14:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Hope Place, Liverpool : 8 - 22 Hope Place
Used in:
en:Grade II listed buildings in Liverpool-L1
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-08-15 14:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Hope Place, Liverpool : 9 - 17 Hope Place
Used in:
en:Grade II listed buildings in Liverpool-L1
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Milseburg (talk) on 2018-08-15 15:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Overall view of Steinküppel (Wildflecken)
Used in:
de:Steinküppel (Wildflecken), de:Liste von Bergen in der Rhön
Reason:
Objekt and shooting position are located in a restricted military area. An opportunity for such a photo arises rarely, only during brief openings of the ground every few years for two days. -- Milseburg (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2018-08-15 16:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Ranularia sarcostoma (Flesh-coloured Hairy Triton), shell
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Basotxerri (talk) on 2018-08-15 17:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Legutio, in Álava, Basque Country, Spain, view direction NE
Used in:
en:Legutio and others
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-08-15 18:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Eleanor Rigby statue
Used in:
en:Stanley Street, Liverpool, en:Eleanor Rigy (statue)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
~Moheen (keep talking) on 2018-08-16 04:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Coin-operated binocular, Cape of Good Hope
Used in:
See global usage
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-08-16 04:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Eumorpha fasciata fasciata mounted specimen male dorsal
  •   Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-08-16 04:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Capitole de Toulouse, bust of Nicolas Bachelier
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-08-16 04:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of Jean de Branque capitoul Musée du Vieux Toulouse
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:11, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
B dash (talk) on 2018-08-16 07:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Leaned post box in Taipei after Typhoon Soudelor
Used in:
en:Typhoon Soudelor
  •   Comment Interesting but it would be necessary to add a geocodage and a caption in English.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-08-16 10:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Irby farmhouse
Used in:
en:Listed buildings in Irby, Merseyside
  •   Comment, have you by any chance got the top of the chimney in the original image file? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  Comment You lose it when you do the angle correction, but I've copied it back in. You lose the tv aerial but that's just another minor detail. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support, it looks more complete now. Useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:18, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2018-08-16 15:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Bertus Hidding Hortus Haren. "Varaan", by Bertus Hidding.
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-08-16 21:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Sundial at St Bartholomew's church, Thurstaston - close views
Used in:
en:Listed buildings in Thurstaston
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-08-17 04:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Eumorpha fasciata fasciata mounted specimen male ventral
  •   Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-08-17 04:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Capitole de Toulouse, bust of Pierre de Fermat
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-08-17 04:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Courtier in red fur hat by Francesco d'Ubertino Fondation Bemberg Toulouse
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-08-17 11:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Merchant Navy memorial, Liverpool
Used in:
en:Liverpool Naval Memorial, wikidata:Q54328883
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2018-08-17 18:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Cochlodina laminata ssp. laminata, shell
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.

The Africa Cafe, frontEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
~Moheen (keep talking) on 2018-08-12 04:34 (UTC)
Scope:
The Africa Cafe, front
Used in:
See global usage
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
~Moheen (keep talking) on 2018-08-12 04:35 (UTC)
Scope:
The Africa Cafe, front
Used in:
See global usage
Open for review.

Tashichho Dzong, Bhutan (general view)Edit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
MrPanyGoff on 2011-06-02 17:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Tashichho Dzong, Bhutan (general view)

  Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 20:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Not as useful in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 20:16, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Bgag (talk) on 2018-08-14 18:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Tashichho Dzong, Bhutan (general view) NW view
  •   Support - More useful in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.

Pending valued image set candidatesEdit

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