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
24,521 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
21,533 (87.8%) 
Undecided
  
1,287 (5.2%) 
Declined
  
1,701 (6.9%) 



New valued image nominationsEdit

   
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
The Photographer on 2017-01-06 11:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Basílica de Nossa Senhora do Carmo (Interior) in Recife, Brazil
Reason:
Best in scope -- The Photographer

  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Horadrim (talk) on 2017-01-09 14:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Teaching model representing the anatomical planes transecting a horse - side view.
Used in:
EN; PT; RO

  Support Useful. lNeverCry 02:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 13:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Horadrim (talk) on 2017-01-09 14:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Equus ferus caballus (horse) articulation. Limb of the horse, after technique of dehydration - side view.
Used in:
PT
  •   Support - Seems to be unique in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 13:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
~ Moheen (talk) on 2017-01-10 20:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Shangri-La
Used in:
See Global Usage

  Comment I doubt whether the scope is sufficiently encyclopedic. In addition the image is unsharp. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
тнояsтеn on 2017-01-11 10:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Funtensee-uvala
Used in:
en:Uvala (landform), de:Uvala, de:Funtensee, de:Berchtesgadener Alpen, de:Berchtesgadener Land
Reason:
Only image on Commons where lake Funtensee within the uvala is shown from such a high point of view. Therefore its special situation in the uvala is recognisable. -- тнояsтеn
  •   Comment Good but, it would be good to put the view orientation. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:10, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
    Heading is given in location template. I added a bit to the description: [1]. --тнояsтеn 08:19, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Very good caption. But in the scope would be perfect. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Cvmontuy (talk) on 2017-01-11 15:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Popocatépetl
Used in:
AR; EN; EN; FA;LB
Reason:
One of the best in scope -- Cvmontuy (talk)

Mexico-Popocatepetl.jpg seem better --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-01-12 09:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Damaliscus lunatus topi (Topi) female with calf

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 13:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-01-12 09:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Damaliscus lunatus topi (Topi) running

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 13:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-01-12 09:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Damaliscus lunatus topi (Topi) adult female

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 13:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2017-01-12 10:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Henri Regnault Photographic portrait
Used in:
Henri Regnault
Reason:
New photograph of a character in "Commons", therefore alone in scope. Henri Regnault was a young french orientalist painter at the end of the french Second Empire. As a soldier during the Franco-Prussian War, he was killed in action, aged 27, at the second Battle of Buzenval (1871). No geocode, it is a studio shot, same for restoration (by me). Original is available as first upload, as usual. -- Jebulon (talk)

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 13:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Cvmontuy (talk) on 2017-01-12 13:06 (UTC)
Scope:
AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 13:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Berthold Werner (talk) on 2017-01-12 14:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Grand Casemates Square, view from south

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2017-01-12 16:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Peio Paese Authentic house in Peio Paese in the Autonomous Province of Trento (Italy).

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2017-01-12 18:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Jules Worms photographic portrait
Used in:
{:creator:Jules Worms}
Reason:
New photograph of a character in "Commons". A french painter and engraver of the late 19-th c./beginning of 20-th. Alone in scope. Had a category, but no photograph. Used in the "creator template", which was image-empty until today, therefore useful. No geocode, it is a studio shot, and a digital restoration by me. -- Jebulon (talk)

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

  •   Support - I know you don't really need more than 1 supporting vote, but I just wanted to say, this is a really striking portrait and another great restoration! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Basotxerri (talk) on 2017-01-12 18:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Mendiola, in Álava, Basque Country, Spain, view direction NE
Used in:
es:Mendiola

  Support Useful --Llez (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2017-01-12 18:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Dracaena ellenbeckiana, habitus

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-01-12 21:56 (UTC)
Scope:
PSP-3000, black

  Best in Scope --Halavar (talk) 11:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-01-12 22:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Unitra turntables, Daniel G-1100 fs

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-01-12 22:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Radmor 5102 stereo receiver
  •   Support - Very good, and by far the best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-01-12 22:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Our Lady of the Rosary church in Radomierz, exposure from W

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
PtrQs (talk) on 2017-01-13 00:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Chartres_cathedral_en_lumiere
  • Thanks for your advice - and the en-lumiere-hint for some visitors ;-) --PtrQs (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  Scope changed from Category:Chartres_en_lumieres to Category:Chartres_cathedral_en_lumiere --PtrQs (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2017 (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".

  •   Question What about copyright (as by the Eiffel tower illumination)? There is no FoP in France. --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-01-13 06:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Clanis bilineata bilineata mounted specimen male ventral

  Support useful. Charles (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-01-13 06:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Santa Maria degli Scalzi (Venice) - Interior - Cappella Venier - Bust of Angelo Venier by Bernardo Falconi

  Comment Image looks tilted. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-01-13 06:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Rio del Gheto (Venice), seen from Ponte de Gheto Novissimo from SW

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
grendel|khan on 2017-01-13 09:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Video of the 2010 San Bruno explosion and fire
Used in:
en:2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion
Reason:
Unique, impossible to reproduce, eyewitness video from the event. -- grendel|khan

  Oppose footage on Youtube indicates this poor quality video is not a valuable record. Charles (talk) 10:47, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
  Oppose Per Charles. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
--Pierre André (talk) 10:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC) on 2017-01-13 10:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Town Hall of Augsbourg "Civitates Conduntur".-Allegory of architecture.

  Comment It is necessary to reduce the scope to the detail that is presented --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

  •   Comment I reduce the scope to the detail : "Ceiling of the Goldener Saal". --Pierre André (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  • It is equally vague. The theme of the central medallion of the image would suffice to characterize the detail. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Civitates Conduntur is an "Allegorie of Architektur" (cities were founded). In fact, this painting refers to the architect Elias Holl, holding a model of the town hall and the compass.--Pierre André (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Perfect now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
--Pierre André (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC) on 2017-01-13 10:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Fuggerei, House of Franz Mozart Augsbourg
Used in:
Global usage
  •   Comment It is necessary to reduce the scope to the detail that is presented --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done I add "House of Franz Mozart",.-Great-grandfather of Wolfgang Amadeus was a mason in Fuggerei.--Pierre André (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-01-13 10:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Kobus ellipsiprymnus defassa (Ugandan defassa waterbuck) male

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-01-13 10:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Kobus ellipsiprymnus defassa (Ugandan defassa waterbuck) juvenile male

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-01-13 10:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Kobus ellipsiprymnus defassa (Ugandan defassa waterbuck) juvenile female

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Halavar (talk) on 2017-01-13 11:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Red Dot Design Museum in Singapore, View from N

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Mile (talk) on 2017-01-13 14:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Camera viewfinders
Used in:
Electronic viewfinder
Reason:
Good and illustrative -- Mile (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2017-01-13 15:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Carpobrotus edulis (Hottentot-fig), fruits
  •   Support - Good quality, only photo in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
DeFacto (talk). on 2017-01-13 21:21 (UTC)
Scope:
The Minstrels' Gallery in Exeter Cathedral
Used in:
en:Exeter Cathedral
  •   Support - Clearly best and most useful in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2017-01-13 21:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Cyclotus variegatus, shell

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
DeFacto (talk). on 2017-01-13 21:30 (UTC)
Scope:
The astronomical clock in Exeter Cathedral
Used in:
en:Exeter Cathedral, en:12-hour clock, en:Exeter Cathedral astronomical clock, fr:Liste des horloges astronomiques du Royaume-Uni, it:Orologio astronomico della cattedrale di Exeter, simple:Exeter Cathedral

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-01-13 21:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Our Lady of the Rosary church in Radomierz, main portal
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 10:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Best in Scope .--Pierre André (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-01-13 22:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Our Lady of the Rosary church in Radomierz, eye of providence
  •   Support Useful and best in scope. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-01-13 22:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Our Lady of the Rosary church in Radomierz, stucco over side entrance
  •   Support Useful and best in scope. --Basotxerri (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-01-13 22:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Our Lady of the Rosary church in Radomierz, chancel
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 10:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-01-14 06:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Clanis bilineata bilineata mounted specimen female dorsal

  Support useful. Charles (talk) 10:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-01-14 06:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Santa Maria degli Scalzi (Venice) - Interior - Cappella Mora - John the Baptist by Melchior Barthel
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 10:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-01-14 06:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Madonna and Child with two Votaries by Paolo Veneziano Gallerie dell'Accademia in Venice
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 10:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-01-14 10:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Damaliscus lunatus topi (Topi) calf eating
Reason:
composite shows two techniques for feeding when your legs are not strong enough to flex and take your weight. The calf's legs are disproportionally long - needed to run away from nasty predators. -- Charles (talk)
  •   Support - Unique in scope and a great document! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-01-14 10:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Syncerus caffer (African buffalo) calf two weeks old
  •   Support - Best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-01-14 10:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Syncerus caffer (African buffalo) calf two weeks old suckling
  •   Support - Useful, seems to be unique in scope. As an aside, I think you should also name and include the category for the birds that are perched on the mother buffalo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
--Pierre André (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC) on 2017-01-14 15:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Ovoos in Gorkhi-Terelj National Park Mongolia
Used in:
Glogal usage
  •   Comment - File:Gorkhi-Terelj National Park 07.JPG looks best in scope, but maybe there's something I'm missing that makes your picture more valuable? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment I think that my image is more valuable because it highlights the emblem of Mongolia: Soyombo of the statuette placed in the center. The image you suggest has a global view, but there is no indication that it is a religious sanctuary in the religion of the Mongol peoples. In addition, my photo is marked by the presence of a yellow scarf. The yellow is the color of the body of Buddha, the color of the eminent lamas and tulkus, clothes and ritual objects. Best regard. --Pierre André (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Thank you for explaining. Most useful in scope on the bases you've laid out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Basotxerri (talk) on 2017-01-14 15:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Berganzo, in Álava, Basque Country, Spain, view direction NW
Used in:

  Support Useful. lNeverCry 21:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Basotxerri (talk) on 2017-01-14 16:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Gorbea quarry, in Álava, Basque Country, Spain, view direction S
Used in:
es:Monte Gorbea

  Support Useful. lNeverCry 21:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Basotxerri (talk) on 2017-01-14 16:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Torre de Doña Ochanda, in Vitoria-Gasteiz, Basque Country, Spain, view direction W
Used in:
fr:Vitoria-Gasteiz

  Support Useful. lNeverCry 21:19, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Basotxerri (talk) on 2017-01-14 16:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Annex and new entrance of the Museo de Bellas Artes de Álava, in Vitoria-Gasteiz, Basque Country, Spain, view direction N
Used in:

  Support Useful. lNeverCry 21:18, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Basotxerri (talk) on 2017-01-14 17:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of the Natividad of Nuestra Señóra, Arkaia, view direction E
Used in:
en:Arkaia

  Support Useful. lNeverCry 21:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
INeverCry (talk) on 2017-01-14 20:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Anton Chekhov in paintings, bust-length portrait by Isaac Levitan
Used in:
20 articles

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:42, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
INeverCry (talk) on 2017-01-14 21:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Grigory Danilevsky, photographic portrait
Used in:
All 5 of his articles

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
INeverCry (talk) on 2017-01-14 21:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Valentina Dmitryeva, photographic portrait
Used in:
Her 2 articles and a list

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
INeverCry (talk) on 2017-01-14 21:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Sergey Elpatyevsky
Used in:
His 2 articles, a list, and en.wikisource
  •   Support - Obviously useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-01-14 21:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Our Lady of the Rosary church in Radomierz, altar

  Support Useful. lNeverCry 06:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-01-14 21:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Our Lady of the Rosary church in Radomierz, stained glass window

  Support Useful --Llez (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-01-14 22:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Minox C, open, front view

  Support Useful --Llez (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-01-14 22:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Minox C, open, back view

  Support Useful --Llez (talk) 23:14, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Olivier LPB (talk) on 2017-01-14 22:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Chapiteaux de l'église Saint-Austremoine d'Issoire - Wise virgins

  Support Useful. lNeverCry 06:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Olivier LPB (talk) on 2017-01-14 22:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Église Saint-Maurice de Treteau - View from SE
  •   Support - Best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2017-01-14 23:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Littoraria pallescens, spotted form, shell
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-01-15 06:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Clanis pratti mounted specimen Male dorsal

  Support Useful --Llez (talk) 08:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-01-15 06:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Santa Maria degli Scalzi (Venice) - Interior - Cappella Manin

  Support Useful --Llez (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-01-15 06:11 (UTC)
Scope:
L'esaltazion della Croce by Giambattista Tiepolo Gallerie dell'Accademia in Venice

  Support Best in scope --Llez (talk) 08:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
--Pierre André (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC) on 2017-01-15 10:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Ceiling of the Golden Hall representing Sapientia, City Hall Augsbourg
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
DeFacto (talk). on 2017-01-15 11:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Lady Chapel with the Great East Window above, Exeter Cathedral
Used in:
en:Exeter Cathedral

  Support Useful. lNeverCry 17:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
DeFacto (talk). on 2017-01-15 11:59 (UTC)
Scope:
The West Window, Exeter Cathedral
Used in:
en:Exeter Cathedral
  •   Support - Best in scope and definitely useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-01-15 21:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Minox C, close, front view

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-01-15 21:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Minox C, close, back view

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-01-15 21:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Minox C, in case
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-01-15 21:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-01-15 22:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Kobus kob thomasi (Ugandan kobs) males fighting

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-01-15 22:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Kobus kob thomasi (Ugandan kobs) mating ritual

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-01-15 22:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Motacilla capensis (Cape wagtail)

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2017-01-15 22:10 (UTC)
Scope:
BMW R35, built 1938.

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Olivier LPB (talk) on 2017-01-15 22:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Église Saint-Pierre-et-Saint-Martin de Cindré - View from NW

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Olivier LPB (talk) on 2017-01-15 23:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Vitraux de l'église Saint-Austremoine d'Issoire - Life of Saint-Anne

  Comment Perspective issue. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  •   Support - Best in scope, though I totally agree with Jacek that it would be a good idea for you to correct the perspective. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-01-16 05:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Clanis pratti mounted specimen Male ventral

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-01-16 06:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Santa Maria degli Scalzi (Venice) - Choir. Tiburtine Sibyl, by Giovanni Marchiori.
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-01-16 06:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Rio Brazzo (Venice) - NE exposure

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-01-16 08:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Ploceus rubiginosus (Chestnut weaver) male
  •   Support - Best in scope and an excellent photo. Too small for FP, I think, but big enough for QI and should be nominated at QIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-01-16 08:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Ploceus rubiginosus (Chestnut weaver) female
  •   Support - Useful and apparently unique in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-01-16 08:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Rhinoptilus cinctus (Heuglin's courser) pair
  •   Support - Very useful and unique in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
--Pierre André (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC) on 2017-01-16 11:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Manor Pakruojis Lithuania
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
SM1 (talk) on 2017-01-16 12:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Bobolice Castle - Forest View
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
SM1 (talk) on 2017-01-16 12:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Market Square in Bochnia – View of Casimir III Monument & Basilica of St Nicholas
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
SM1 (talk) on 2017-01-16 12:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Paweł Stalmach - Statue in Cieszyn
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Berthold Werner (talk) on 2017-01-16 12:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Cathedral of St. Mary the Crowned, Gibraltar, facade from southwest
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
~ Moheen (talk) on 2017-01-16 12:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Baby Margaretha
Used in:
See Global Usage
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
~ Moheen (talk) on 2017-01-16 13:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Chiaki Morita
Used in:
See Global Usage
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
~ Moheen (talk) on 2017-01-16 13:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Eching Beching
Used in:
See Global Usage
Open for review.



Pending Most valued review candidatesEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2015-04-19 20:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Papio anubis (Olive baboon) carrying baby on its back
Used in:
Papio anubis Wikipedia Papio anubis
Reason:
  • Unique image on Commons of Olive baboon carrying baby on its back -- Charles (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 13:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-01-04 11:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Papio anubis (Olive baboon) female with juvenile on her back

  Comment Baby baboon on back.jpg Is already promoted. I know the author is a very good photographer!--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
This other one is a baby, this one is a much older juvenile, that's why I nominated it, but can go to MVR if everyone agrees. Charles (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

  •   Comment - Is there a way to more clearly differentiate the scopes of the different photos? The other one was promoted in the scope "Papio anubis (Olive baboon) carrying young on its back", which is the same scope as this one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
  • No idea. I would like to change the existing one from young to baby, but don't know how to do that. Charles (talk)
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose =>
undecided. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Yes, this is clearly a better photo, but why can't we distinguish the scopes, given that in this case, it's a juvenile on its mother's back, whereas in the other one, it's a baby? I think both photos are clearly useful and distinct in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 13:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
To initiate a most valued review, please go to the dedicated MVR sub page.
Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache

All open candidates in an MVR have to have their status set as "discussed" while the review is ongoing. Only when all candidates are due for closure can the MVR be closed.

Refer to Most valued review, the promotion rules and the instructions for closure for details.

Pending valued image set candidatesEdit

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