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


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


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

Changes in scope during the review periodEdit

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

You can submit new nominations starting on COM:VIC.

Pending valued image candidatesEdit

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache
28,524 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
25,218 (88.4%) 
Undecided
  
1,446 (5.1%) 
Declined
  
1,860 (6.5%) 



New valued image nominationsEdit

   
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2017-11-16 06:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Carajá Ceramic statuette - jaguar and her young
  •   Comment - C'est bon, mais il y a deja un foto dans ce scope, n'est-ce pas? (Et scope, qu'est-ce que c'est en francais?) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
      Comment Ces deux sont les mêmes Scope 1 2 -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 [discuter] on 2017-11-19 10:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Maison Adolph (Colmar)
Reason:
National heritage site. -- Gzen92 [discuter]
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 [discuter] on 2017-11-19 15:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Maison des Chevaliers de Saint-Jean (Colmar)
Reason:
National heritage site. -- Gzen92 [discuter]
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 [discuter] on 2017-11-19 15:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Maison Kern (Colmar)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 [discuter] on 2017-11-19 16:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Maison zum Kragen (Colmar)
Reason:
National heritage site. -- Gzen92 [discuter]
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 [discuter] on 2017-11-19 16:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Maison zum Oesterreich (Colmar)
Reason:
National heritage site. -- Gzen92 [discuter]
  new version Gzen92 [discuter] 08:14, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 [discuter] on 2017-11-19 16:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Maison Pfeffel (Colmar)
Reason:
National heritage site. -- Gzen92 [discuter]
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2017-11-19 17:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Buildings in Chur Graubündner Kantonalbank Poststrasse 2-4 Detail. Northwest side.
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
MathKnight (Talk) on 2017-11-19 18:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Haviv elementary school
Used in:
he:בית הספר חביב, en:Rishon LeZion and other Wikipedias
Reason:
high res, geotagged, shows the main facade of the historic school -- MathKnight (Talk)
  •   Question Looking at the road I can't tell. Is it naturally on an angle like that? -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment For the road is an existing lump, the appearance is correct. But for the building it is necessary to correct the aberrant perspective. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment The "lump" in the road is a speed bump, designed to make cars drive slowly near the school. The street is not leveled but sloppy because it was paved on a small hill. Therefore, the perspective is correct. MathKnight (Talk) 17:39, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
      Support Well then although it's hard to believe the building is tilted that much, I have seen stranger things. If it is an accurate representation of the subject of the scope, then I support per your argument. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 09:10, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Perspective correction necessary. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree; see the house in the background right, the right part of the fence, the street lamp and also the hanging lamp at the top; all tilted in reality, the house in the background even more than the object itself? --Llez (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
PhilipTerryGraham (talk) on 2017-11-20 02:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Kingsgrove railway station, Sydney, at night

Previous reviews

  •   Comment When a file fails once before, let alone twice, there is almost always something wrong that should (if possible) be addressed with the nomination. I don't think this nomination will succeed since for a scope specifically with "at night" it needs to have some notability at night. It should be used in an article because that photo is specifically at night, or at least notable enough that someone would be looking for a shot of the subject at night. This is just a railway station and in that case per COM:VIS "In general, the VI for a building scope should be a daylight picture." Even though yours may be a better picture, this seem to sit the criteria better. Therefor I don't think this nomination will ever succeed. Sorry. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 07:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2017-11-20 19:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Borgward Hansa 1800, side-view
Used in:
de:Borgward, de:Borgward Hansa 1500, en:Ponton (car), en:Borgward Hansa 1500 and so on
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2017-11-20 20:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Glas Goggomobil, first model with rear-hinged doors, in motion
Used in:
de:Goggomobil, fi:Goggomobil, it:Glas Goggomobil
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2017-11-20 20:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Chiesetta del Passo Sella, Sella Pass, Dolomites
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2017-11-21 01:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Jefferson Township, Franklin County, Ohio administration building sign
Used in:
en:Jefferson Township, Franklin County, Ohio
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2017-11-21 01:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Donatos Pizza Corporate Headquarters from the east
Used in:
en:Donatos Pizza
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2017-11-21 01:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Gahanna-Jefferson Public Schools Administration Offices from the west
Used in:
en:Gahanna, Ohio
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2017-11-21 05:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Buorren 1, Langweer Voorm. right house Doniawerstal Buorren 1. South east side.
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-11-21 06:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Nyceryx eximia Mounted specimen male dorsal
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-11-21 06:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of San Salvatore (Venice) - The Savior by Giulio del Moro
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-11-21 06:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Rue Peyrolières (Toulouse) - no 45 - The house of the blacksmith Bernard Ortet late fifteenth century
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Darwin Ahoy! on 2017-11-21 21:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Edifício Barão de Iguape Exterior, front view, taken from Viaduto do Chá
@Archaeodontosaurus: Done!-- Darwin Ahoy! 08:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Blue Rasberry (talk) on 2017-11-22 00:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Net neutrality
Used in:
en:Net neutrality
Reason:
This particular image got viral attention in the media around 27 October 2017 due to its usefulness as an illustration for explaining the concept of net neutrality. I documented some of the media mentions in the file description. I know that this image is new, but I think that it would not be possible to find any other image with the history of discussion in media that this one has. Also, "net neutrality" is a difficult concept to illustrate, so it is unlikely that many relevant images exist. -- Blue Rasberry (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-11-22 05:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Nyceryx eximia Mounted specimen male ventral
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-11-22 05:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Scola degli Albanesi (Venice) – Facade between Palace Bellavite and Church San Maurizio
  •   Best in Scope Nice annotations. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 06:50, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-11-22 05:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Église Notre-Dame-de-l'Assomption de Montbeton Tarn-et-Garonne, France - SE exposure
  •   Support - Useful. Also probably a QI if nominated. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2017-11-22 07:48 (UTC)
Scope:
The Wagnalls Memorial seen from the south
Used in:
en:Adam Willis Wagnalls
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Darwin Ahoy! on 2017-11-22 08:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:184 Pátio do Colégio Exterior, facade
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. (An English description in the image file would be appreciated!) -- DeFacto (talk). 20:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2017-11-22 08:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Ohio State Route 674 northbound between Franklin County, and Fairfield County, Ohio
Used in:
en:Ohio State Route 674
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2017-11-22 08:39 (UTC)
Scope:
The Log House in Gahanna, Ohio
Used in:
en:Gahanna, Ohio
  •   Support - Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Darwin Ahoy! on 2017-11-22 10:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Edifício Caio Prado exterior, view from Praça do Patriarca
Reason:
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Peulle (talk) on 2017-11-22 11:01 (UTC)
Scope:
The painting "Father comes home" by L.A. Ring.
Reason:
Best in scope, IMO; of the 4 available images, this has the best rendering of the real-life colours of the painting. -- Peulle (talk)
  •   Best in Scope Agree, this is the only other one that could really compete with your selection, and the one you choose is clearly better to me. Although I did have to do some searching so categorization of the others could be better. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 12:36, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I will improve the categories. Thanks for your review.--Peulle (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Must connect the scope to the category that contains the image --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:21, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  Done :) --Peulle (talk) 11:57, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2017-11-22 12:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Gahanna Historical Society Sign
  •   Support unique photo of this sign Ezarateesteban 22:51, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2017-11-22 13:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Confluence of Rocky Fork Creek and Sycamore Run Creek
  •   Comment it's a bit dark, could you improve the lightning a bit? Ezarateesteban 22:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
      Comment Is that better? -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 09:05, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support best in scope Ezarateesteban 11:26, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2017-11-22 17:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Colina pinguis, shell
  •   Support - Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Ezarateesteban on 2017-11-22 22:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Hyundai Creta, rear view
The other image in the scope is very tight cropped but better lighted. I think we can wait for a real good one. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 12:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-11-23 06:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Daphnis dohertyi dohertyi Mounted specimen male dorsal
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-11-23 06:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Ampelomeryx ginsburgi, skull
  •   Support Useful, Used and very cool! -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 09:13, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-11-23 06:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Rue Clémence-Isaure (Toulouse) - From beginning to the Goethe Institute
  •   Support Useful and used, best in scope -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2017-11-23 06:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Sagi Tschiertschen Detail machine to saw wood construction year 1920.
  •   Support Good detail, best image in scope -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:46, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2017-11-23 07:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Idskenhuizen Monument to former church. West side.
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2017-11-23 09:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Pleasant Township Township Services Building
Used in:
en:Pleasant Township, Franklin County, Ohio
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Peulle (talk) on 2017-11-23 12:22 (UTC)
Scope:
The Rhodes Colossus.
Used in:
50+ Wikipedia articles
Reason:
Great historical value, best illustration available. -- Peulle (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Martinvl (talk) on 2017-11-17 11:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Blending of Moorish and Christian architecture in the Mosque-Cathedral of Córdoba
Reason:
This UNESCO-listed site is probably the world's best example of a building that has retained both the Moorish architecture and Christian architecture. I believe this to be the best image in Commons that illustrates how the two architectural styles are blended. -- Martinvl (talk)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:14, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2017-11-23 18:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Borgward RS from 1954 driven by Fritz Jüttner
Used in:
de:Borgward, de:1000-km-Rennen auf dem Nürburgring 1958, fr:Borgward and so on
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2017-11-23 20:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Imperia 500 H Sport from 1929 in motion
Used in:
de:Imperia Fahrzeugwerk
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sixflashphoto (talk) 03:17, 24 November 2017 (UTC) on 2017-11-24 03:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Gahanna, Ohio City Hall
Used in:
en:Gahanna, Ohio
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2017-11-24 03:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Gahanna Lincoln High School from the northwest
Used in:
en:Lincoln High School (Gahanna, Ohio)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2017-11-24 03:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Firehouse Subs Restaurant
Used in:
en:Firehouse Subs
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2017-11-24 03:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Reynoldsburg, Ohio City Hall from the east
Used in:
en:Reynoldsburg, Ohio
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2017-11-24 04:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Reynoldsburg, Ohio Police Headquarters from the south
Used in:
en:Reynoldsburg, Ohio
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2017-11-24 05:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Licking Heights High School in Pataskala, Ohio
Used in:
en:Licking Heights High School
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-11-24 06:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Daphnis dohertyi dohertyi Mounted specimen male ventral
  •   Support Usefull --Ercé (talk) 07:40, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-11-24 06:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Sacca de la Misericordia (Venice) - viewed from Ponte de la Sacca
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:29, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on {{{date}}}
Scope:
Madonna in trono con il Bambino tra i ss. Anna, Gioacchino, Ludovico da Tolosa, Antonio da Padova, Francesco e Bernardino da Siena di Alvise Vivarini, Gallerie dell'Accademia in Venice.
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:31, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
-- DeFacto (talk). on 2017-11-24 07:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Wolseley Hornet Swallow 1932 - front
Used in:
en:Swallow Sidecar Company
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2017-11-24 07:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Saxifraga caesia
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Basile Morin (talk) on 2017-11-24 14:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Common House Geckos (Hemidactylus frenatus), mating
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Basile Morin (talk) on 2017-11-24 14:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Lotus fruit (Nelumbo nucifera), seeds
  •   Comment If the scope if the seeds then I could see supporting this. If the scope is the fruit I would have a hard time picking it over this -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 04:30, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Basile Morin (talk) on 2017-11-24 14:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Calving
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ermell (talk) on 2017-11-24 15:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Marek Janowski
Used in:
https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marek_Janowski
  •   Support Very impressive image, best in scope and often used. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Ermell (talk) on 2017-11-24 15:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Nodate Japanese tea ceremony
Used in:
pl:Matcha, fr:Cérémonie_du_thé_japonaise, mr:झेन तत्त्वज्ञान
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2017-11-24 17:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Bexley City Hall
Used in:
en:Bexley, Ohio
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2017-11-24 19:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Rudge Ulster from 1938 in motion
Used in:
bg:Списък на мотоциклетни марки от Европа, de:Rudge, en:Rudge-Whitworth, nl:Rudge
  •   Support Useful and used.--Ermell (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Martinvl (talk) on 2017-11-24 10:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Road sign with multiple occurrences of "Ü"
Used in:
Reason:
The letter "ü" is common in German, but almost non-existant in English. As a curiosity, all three cities on this German road sign contain the letter "ü". -- Martinvl (talk)
  •   Support I will admit I took more than a moment to consider this one. It's widely used; it is nominated with a valid reason, a reason supported in the articles. There is no other image to compare it to which makes it more difficult, but it does seem to meet the criteria I believe. I admit it's obscure, but it's certainly something of interest. So I choose to support. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2017-11-24 20:19 (UTC)
Scope:
FMR Tg500 in competition
Used in:
de:Messerschmitt Kabinenroller, en:FMR Tg500, eo:Messerschmitt TG500, nl:Messerschmitt Kabinenroller, sv:FMR Tg 500, zh:光岡K-2
Reason:
A very rare photograph of two FMR Tg 500 in competition at Nürburgring. I took it 41 years ago. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk)
  •   Support Useful, Used and really rare. Nice Contribution. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2017-11-24 21:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Leonia scrobiculata, shell
  •   Support Useful, Used and really good -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2017-11-24 23:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Truro Township Townhall from the southwest
Used in:
en:Truro Township, Franklin County, Ohio
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2017-11-24 23:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Front of Bexley High School
Used in:
en:Bexley High School
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2017-11-24 23:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Columbus School for Girls
Used in:
en:Columbus School for Girls
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Stepro (talk) on 2017-11-25 00:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Dieter Bellmann
Used in:
Dieter Bellmann, Q1221642
  •   Comment The Scope must link to a Commons Catagory. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 00:52, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2017-11-25 01:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Plain Township Town Hall
Used in:
en:Plain Township, Franklin County, Ohio
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 25 November 2017
Scope:
Cheritra freja evansi (Khasi Common Imperial), ventral
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 25 November 2017
Scope:
Choaspes benjaminii japonica (Oriental Common Awlking), ventral
  •   Support I have a hard time picking between the two you took so I'll go with your choice. Useful. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 04:26, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2017-11-25 04:22 (UTC)
Scope:
New Albany, Ohio City Hall
Used in:
en:New Albany, Ohio
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 25 November 2017
Scope:
Pantoporia hordonia hordonia (Oriental Common Lascar), dorsal
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 25 November 2017
Scope:
Lethe confusa confusa (Himalayan Banded Treebrown), ventral
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.

Pending valued image set candidatesEdit

New valued image set nominationsEdit

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

Closed valued image set candidatesEdit