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
22,465 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
19,610 (87.3%) 
Undecided
  
1,213 (5.4%) 
Declined
  
1,642 (7.3%) 



New valued image nominationsEdit

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Grtek (talk) on 2016-08-23 14:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Pihtsusköngäs canyon in winter
  •  Comment You are maybe right on the first half - the scope is canyon and the canyon could be non-important (unlike waterfall). The canyon didnt have a name on finnish topographic maps, so I called the scope "Pihtsusköngäs Canyon" after the waterfall above the canyon. Köngäs means "waterfall" in finnish, so it is probably wrong name for a canyon ;-) Pihtsusrotko or Pihtsuskuru or Pihtsuskanjoni would be better (the stream is called Pihtsusjohka, the lake above waterfall Pihtsusjärvi, etc). But it is just question of name and in fact it seems to me as non-important (or fixable). Maybe more important question is if the object itself is important (when it havent name in topographic map...)--Grtek (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Masum-al-hasan Rocky (talk) on 2016-08-24 13:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Arun Kumar Basak
  •  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Useful --Nahid Hossain (talk) 05:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Oppose @Archaeodontosaurus: @Nahid.rajbd: I do not understand why you support a VI image of a Wikipedia user?? Charles (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment This is a scientist who has two articles that were not censored. For illuster this is the best, there is no problem. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I think VI review procedure is not voting. ~ Moheen (talk) 07:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. The professor has an article on Wikipedia, but one that was created by a member of staff at his University and who now nominates him for VI. I agree the article has not yet been deleted on 'notability' grounds. I am not keen on this sort of promotion/marketing on Wikipedia. Charles (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment @Charlesjsharp: I like to inform you that it's not a matter of promotion/marketing on Wikipedia. He is one of the top scientists and the only Professor Emeritus in the Department of Physics in Bangladesh. He has many other national and international recognition as well. The article on him in English Wikipedia is not completed yet that's why one may confuse.--Masum-al-hasan Rocky (talk) 17:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support useful (and important - two interwiki)--Grtek (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2016-08-25 16:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Vögele stone crusher (1932)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Martinvl (talk) on 2016-08-25 21:15 (UTC)
Scope:
De Havilland DH 82A Tiger Moth
  •  Comment please change scope to be more precise : because for the category of the actual scope it is this photo which is the best. Olivier LPB (talk) 21:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Scope changed from De Havilland DH 82 Tiger Moth to De Havilland DH 82A Tiger Moth --Martinvl (talk) 13:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

@Olivier LPB:Scope changed as requested.

  • I am very sorry, but, i am not an expert on plane, and I can't do the difference between the DH 82 and the DH 82A, there isn't a category to do it. Olivier LPB (talk) 09:24, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
DeFacto (talk). 06:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC) on 2016-08-26 06:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Wolseley 1500 engine bay

 Support Useful, very didactic (The horn is the most powerful element of this engine.) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:50, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

 Comment, It must have been made for the export market - we don't use the horn much in the UK. ;-) DeFacto (talk). 08:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment the battery of course is not contemporary... Charles (talk) 22:14, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2016-08-26 11:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Ceanothus americanus (New Jersey Tea), Habitus

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2016-08-26 15:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Svoboda DK 12 (1940)

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2016-08-26 17:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Obba rota (Rota Obba), Shell

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-08-27 04:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Marumba gaschkewitschii gressitti mounted specimen male ventral
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-08-27 04:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Teulat, Tarn, France - Chapel St. Martin, East exposure.
  •  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 08:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-08-27 05:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Ponte Santa Caterina (Venice), on rio di Santa Caterina, NW exposure
  •  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 08:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
~ Moheen (talk) on 2016-08-27 18:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Busts of Aristotle, Roman copy after a Greek bronze original by Lysippos
Used in:
See Global Usage

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
XRay talk on 2016-08-27 18:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Guardian angel (or Angel of Peace) in front of the hall of St. Boniface congregation
Used in:
de:Schapdetten

Previous reviews and Previous reviews

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
--Pierre André (talk) 19:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC) on 2016-08-27 19:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Vitraux de l'église Saint-Cornély (Carnac) Saint-Cornély

Do you want to change your scope, to precise the church of the stained glass ? Olivier LPB (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

  •  Done ----

Scope changed from Category:Saint Cornelius on stained glass windows to Saint Cornelius on stained glass windows of Église Saint-Cornély (Carnac) --Pierre André (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

  •  Comment as this nomination, I think, that is it best if we have in the scope the name of the stained glass AND the name of the church. Olivier LPB (talk) 09:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Done Thank you for your notice.--Pierre André (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Olivier LPB (talk) 23:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2016-08-27 21:24 (UTC)
Scope:
SFV Vierzon H1 (1936)

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2016-08-27 21:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Cerithium alucastrum, subfossil shell

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2016-08-27 21:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Helicella itala (Heath snail) banded form, in aestivation, apical side

 Comment This image Helicella itala 01.JPG seems more didactic. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 Info This is a typical state of "Trockenruhe" (sorry, I don't know the English expression). The animal rests during dry periods (and closes the shell by a "diaphragma") and waits for moist weather. What about changing the scope here to Helicella itala (Heath snail) banded form in "Trockenruhe", apical side or something like that? --Llez (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 Done many thanks. I'm no snail expert like you! Charles (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

  •  Support Best in scope --Llez (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2016-08-27 21:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Helicella itala (Heath snail) banded form, in aestivation, umbilical side

 Comment This image Helicella itala 01.JPG seems more didactic. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 Info This is a typical state of "Trockenruhe" (sorry, I don't know the English expression). The animal rests during dry periods (and closes the shell by a "diaphragma") and waits for moist weather. What about changing the scope here to Helicella itala (Heath snail) banded form in "Trockenruhe", umbilical side or something like that? --Llez (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 Done many thanks. I'm no snail expert like you! Charles (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

  •  Support Best in scope --Llez (talk) 11:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2016-08-27 21:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Helicella itala (Heath snail) white form, in aestivation, apical side

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Or  Info This is a typical state of "Trockenruhe" (sorry, I don't know the English expression). The animal rests during dry periods (and closes the shell by a "diaphragma") and waits for moist weather. What about changing the scope here to Helicella itala (Heath snail) white form in "Trockenruhe", apical side or something like that? --Llez (talk) 07:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

  •  Done Thanks for advice. I don't agree with MVR though; should always have different scope for empty shells, like mounted insects. Charles (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Best in scope --Llez (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2016-08-27 21:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Helicella itala (Heath snail) white form, in aestivation, umbilical side

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Or  Info This is a typical state of "Trockenruhe" (sorry, I don't know the English expression). The animal rests during dry periods (and closes the shell by a "diaphragma") and waits for moist weather. What about changing the scope here to Helicella itala (Heath snail) white form in "Trockenruhe", umbilical side or something like that? --Llez (talk) 07:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

  •  Done Thanks for advice. I don't agree with MVR though; should always have different scope for empty shells, like mounted insects. Charles (talk) 10:13, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Best in scope --Llez (talk) 11:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2016-08-28 04:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Fuchsia 'Toos' Flowers.

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Christian Ferrer (talk) on 2016-08-28 05:16 (UTC)
Scope:
BRITTA K (ship, 1974)
Reason:
Alone in scope, unused because there is no article -- Christian Ferrer (talk)

 Best in Scope ! --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-08-28 05:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Elibia dolichus mounted specimen, male, dorsal

 Support useful Charles (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-08-28 05:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Bourg-Saint-Bernard. The church of St. Peter in Roques southern exposure.
  •  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 08:33, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment IMO. little bit of perspective correction is needed. As I see it curved to the left. ~ Moheen (talk) 09:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Done Thank you, I had not seen.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support Now much batter. ~ Moheen (talk) 22:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-08-28 05:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Basilica di Santa Maria Gloriosa dei Frari- Venezia - Statue of St.Agnes of Rome by Girolamo Campagna
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
DeFacto (talk). on 2016-08-28 08:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Land Rover Discovery 4 - front
Used in:

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2016-08-28 17:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Wayside shrine (1653) in Mannebach/Kümmern (near Saarburg), Germany.
Used in:
de:Liste der Kulturdenkmäler in Mannebach (bei Saarburg), de:Kümmern

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2016-08-28 17:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Kleinland Ponny (1952)

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2016-08-28 17:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Merkurturm, Baden-Baden, view from south east.

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Triton (talk) on 2016-08-28 21:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Tidal stream generators
Used in:
fr:Sabella (entreprise)
Reason:
also or -- Triton (talk)
  •  Comment Must connect the scope to the category that contains the image. This is not the place to present alternative images. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2016-08-28 22:13 (UTC)
Scope:
South-West-North-Panorama from Merkur tower, Baden-Baden

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-08-29 05:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Marumba gaschkewitschii gressitti mounted specimen female dorsal

 Support Useful --Llez (talk) 16:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-08-29 05:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Château de Montauriol (Montauban) North facade

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-08-29 05:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Church Santi Apostoli (Venice). Statue Stoup of St.Peter by Heinrich Meyring 1701

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2016-08-29 15:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Allgaier Tractor A22, built 1951.

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2016-08-29 16:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Lanz HRK-55 Raupenbulldog (1938)

The one and only! --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2016-08-29 16:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Babylonia spirata (Spiral Babylon), shell

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Martinvl (talk) on 2016-08-29 21:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Replica of the Batavia at sea.
Used in:
10 articles in 4 different languages.
Reason:
In my view this is the best image in Commons of a seventeenth century Dutch East Indiaman. The original ship ran aground off Western Australia in 1628. -- Martinvl (talk)

 Comment Horizon is tilted. Charles (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

 Info@Charlesjsharp: Corrected. Martinvl (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support now ok. Charles (talk) 07:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Elisardojm (talk) on 2016-08-30 00:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Matthiola sinuata (Sea Stock), Flower.
  •  Comment The scope is not properly formatted. The binomial name should be in italics followed by the english vernacular name in parenthesis. Must reduce the scope to Flower --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Archaeodontosaurus, I think that I have fixed the scope... Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 08:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment Better, but you also need a caption in English and it will be perfect --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have added the description in English Archaeodontosaurus, thanks for your help! Bye, --Elisardojm (talk) 19:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-08-30 05:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Elibia dolichus Mounted specimen male ventral

 Support useful. Charles (talk) 07:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-08-30 05:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Chapel of the Immaculate Conception, Montauban France. Southern exposure.
  1.  Support usefull and good quality (maybe a QI ?) Olivier LPB (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-08-30 05:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Basilica di Santa Maria Gloriosa dei Frari- Venice - Miracle of St. Anthony by Francesco Rosa

 Support Useful --Llez (talk) 20:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Martinvl (talk) on 2016-08-30 10:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Lime quarry, Robben Island
Used in:
en:Robben Island
Reason:
This quarry is the site where anti-apartheid prisoners, amongst others, Nelson Mandela carried out hard labour. The whole of Robben Island is a World Heritage Site. -- Martinvl (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Masum-al-hasan Rocky (talk) on 2016-08-30 11:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Signing of Pakistani Instrument of Surrender by Pakistan's Lt.Gen. A. A. K. Niazi
Reason:
Lt Gen Niazi signing the Instrument of Surrender under the gaze of Lt Gen Aurora. -- Masum-al-hasan Rocky (talk)
  •  Comment useful, but could it be geolocated? --Grtek (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Martinvl (talk) on 2016-08-30 15:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Groot Constantia homestead
Reason:
I believe this to be the best view of the homestaed of this historic farmhouse, now a South African Protect site. -- Martinvl (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2016-08-30 19:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Happy Farmer 8/16 (1916)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2016-08-30 19:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Burg Meersburg, view from east
Reason:
 Info This is the only picture on Commons which shows the whole castle from east. -- Llez (talk)

 Support I have checked this submission against all six VI criteruia and am satisfied that this is indeed the best image in Commons within the scope specified. Martinvl (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
DeFacto (talk). on 2016-08-30 19:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Land Rover Defender 110 Station Wagon - front
Used in:
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