Commons:Valued image candidates

Shortcut
COM:VIC
This project page in other languages:
Skip to image nominations Skip to image nominations Most valued reviews Skip to most valued reviews Skip to set nominations Skip to set nominations
Valued image seal.svg

These are the candidates to become valued images. Please note that this is not the same as featured pictures or quality images. If you simply want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at photography critiques.

Single images can be proposed for valued image (VI) status. Candidates must be proposed as being the most valuable of all Commons' images within a specified scope. Judging is carried out according to the valued image criteria.

A Most Valued Review (MVR) is opened where there are two or more candidates competing within essentially the same scope.

The rules for promotion can be found at Commons:Valued image candidates/Promotion rules.

An image which has previously been declined can be renominated within the same scope only if the issues leading to the original decline have been addressed. Previously nominated images that were closed as "undecided" can be renominated at any time. Once a candidate achieves VI or VIS status it can normally be demoted only if some better candidate replaces it during an MVR.

If you would like to nominate an image for VI status, please do so following the instructions below. If you are proposing a better candidate within essentially the same scope as an image which already has VI status, please open an MVR.

Skip to current candidates Valued Image links:

How to nominate an image for VI statusEdit

Nominations will be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. Please read those criteria before submitting an image to help cut down on the number of candidates that have a low chance of success. Make sure you understand the concept of scope and how to choose the correct scope for your nomination. Please make sure that your proposed image fulfills all of the necessary criteria before nominating it. For example, if it needs to be geocoded, do that in advance. If no appropriate categories exist, create and link them beforehand. Although some reviewers may help by fixing minor issues during the review process, it is your responsibility as nominator to ensure your image ticks all the necessary boxes before you propose it. If you nominate an image that ignores one of the criteria, don't be surprised if it fails VI review.

Adding a new nomination (image)Edit

Step 1: Copy the image name into this box (excluding the File: prefix), at the end of the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Valued image candidates/My-image-filename.jpg. Then click on the "Create new nomination" button.


Step 2: Follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save the resulting VIC subpage.

Step 3: Manually add the candidate image towards the end of Commons:Valued image candidates/candidate list (under the heading "New valued image nominations"), as the last parameter in the VICs template. Click here, and append the following line as the last parameter of the relevant section:

|My-image-filename.jpg

so that it looks like this:

{{VICs
 ...
 |My-image-filename.jpg
}}

and save the candidate list.


RenominationEdit

Declined VICs can be renominated by any registered user, but only after one or more of the root cause(s) leading to a decline has/have been addressed. Undecided VICs can be renominated as is although it is still recommended to consider and fix issue(s) which may have hindered a promotion of the candidate in the previous review.

Besides fixing issues with the previous nomination the following procedure shall be followed upon renomination.

Step 1: Edit the candidate subpage you intend to renominate. All declined and undecided VICs are placed in either Category:Declined valued image candidates, or Category:Undecided valued image candidates and sorted by the date of the previous nomination.

Step 2: Replace the previous nomination date and time by pasting in

|date={{subst:VI-time}}

Step 3: Replace the "undecided" or "declined" status with "nominated" (or "discussed" if you intend to add it to a Most Valued Review).

Step 4: If the previous nominator was a different user replace the nominator parameter with

|nominator=~~~

Step 5: If the candidate does not already have an archive link to previous reviews: Create one using the following procedure.

  • Cut the text in the previous review section (leave the closing braces "}}")
  • replace the review parameter with
|review=
{{subst:VIC-archive}}
}}
  • Save the page.
  • There is now a red link to Previous reviews. Click the link to create the archive subpage and paste in the previous reviews.
  • Save the previous reviews archive page

Step 6: Add the candidate to the candidates list.

How to open a Most Valued ReviewEdit

There must be at least two candidates competing within essentially the same scope to open an MVR. Each needs its own VIC subpage, which should be created as above if it does not already exist, but with status set to "discussed". Then, add the following section at the end of the page Commons:Valued image candidates/Most valued review candidate list:

=== Scope ===
{{VICs
  |candidate1.jpg
  |candidate2.jpg
}}

where candidate1.jpg and candidate2.jpg are the VIC subpages of the respective candidates. If need be, also remove the relevant image(s) from the list in Pending valued image candidates

If one of the candidates is an existing VI within essentially the same scope, the original VIC subpage is re-opened for voting by changing its status to status=discussed and new reviews are appended to the original VIC subpage. However, any original votes are not counted within the MVR.

The status parameter of each candidate should remain set to "discussed" while the MVR is ongoing.

How to review the candidatesEdit

How to review an imageEdit

Any registered user can review the valued image candidates. Comments are welcome from everyone, but neither the nominator nor the original image author may vote (that does not exclude voting from users who have edited the image with a view to improving it).

Nominations should be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. Please read those and the page on scope carefully before reviewing. Reviewing here is a serious business, and a reviewer who just breezes by to say "I like it!" is not adding anything of value. You need to spend the time to check the nomination against every one of the six VI criteria, and you also need to carry out searches to satisfy yourself on the "most valuable" criterion.

Review procedureEdit

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


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


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

Changes in scope during the review periodEdit

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

You can submit new nominations starting on COM:VIC.

Pending valued image candidatesEdit

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache
39,764 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
35,628 (89.6%) 
Undecided
  
1,953 (4.9%) 
Declined
  
2,183 (5.5%) 



New valued image nominationsEdit

   
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Spurzem (talk) on 2020-07-09 15:38 (UTC)
Scope:
MAW engine of a Motorized bicycles from 1959
Used in:
de: MAW (Hilfsmotor)
  •   Support Useful & used. --GRDN711 (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 06:28 or 18:28 (UTC)
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Fluffy89502 ~ talk on 2020-08-01 21:48 (UTC)
Scope:
John Lewis (American politician)
  •   Comment Fluffy89502, you need to link the Commons category that includes all the photos of Mr. Lewis, and I seriously doubt, anyway, that this one is the best. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 23:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-08-02 05:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Place de la halle Le Burgaud, Haute-Garonne France
  •   Comment Best in scope. However, is the GPS position correct? It seems to be next to Place de la Mairie, not Place de la halle. The distance is not much, but I think it would be very helpful (especially for a VI) to have the coordinate corrected so that a viewer can really see the context of this image. Then I will support it. --Domob (talk) 10:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Right, there was a discrepancy: I corrected, thanks. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Useful, GPS coordinates close enough now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:07, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  Comment While they were close before, I think that in a context like this (where there might be different places close together in a city, and the VI is specifically for a particular place), the coordinates should really be such that the place can be identified uniquely on the map. --Domob (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
  Comment I was reacting to the new coordinates, which in Google Street View produced a view from a slightly different position of the place than the one in the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Thanks, perfect! --Domob (talk) 07:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 23:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2020-08-04 09:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Marble relief of two saints (faces destroyed), Campo Santo de Perpignan (Base Mémoire: MHR91_20086604953)
  •   Support Useful and best in scope -- Spurzem (talk) 11:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 23:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2020-08-04 10:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Virgin with child, wooden sculpture in: Hyacinthe Rigaud Museum, Perpignan.
  •   Support Useful and best in scope -- Spurzem (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 23:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Spurzem (talk) on 2020-08-04 11:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Wanderer W 25 K from 1938, side view
Used in:
de: Wanderer W 25 K
  •   Support Useful and nice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 23:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Spurzem (talk) on 2020-08-04 11:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Wanderer W 25 K from 1938, front and right side
Used in:
de: Wanderer W 25 K
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 23:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Spurzem (talk) on 2020-08-04 11:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Wanderer W 25 K from 1938, steering wheel and dashboard, view from right
Used in:
de: Wanderer W 25 K
  •   Comment Useful, but I'd normally call this the dashboard and restrict "cockpit" to planes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: I would have been surprised if you didn't have something to complain about. In my opinion, the photo shows not only a dashboard, but also a steering wheel and - though quite dark - the gear lever, the pedals and part of the seat. But if you think the scope needs to be limited to the dashboard, please be free and change it. Best wishes -- Spurzem (talk) 07:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps we should write: steering wheel and dashboard (?). -- Spurzem (talk) 07:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Sure, that's a good scope. But please understand, I'm not complaining. Why do you think it's annoying to work to arrive at the most useful scope? You provide wonderful photos. That's the most important thing, but we need to help people find them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
I have not yet understood how people can use the scopes to find specific images. But I've changed the scope now. -- Spurzem (talk) 16:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 23:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 [discuter] on 2020-08-04 12:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Château d'eau de Sélestat
  •   Support Not yet used but useful and best in scope -- Spurzem (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
      Done I forgot to use it. Gzen92 [discuter] 05:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 23:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ras67 (talk) on 2020-08-04 18:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Lennart Bernadotte
Reason:
IMHO this is the most representative photo of Lennart Bernadotte. -- Ras67 (talk)
  •   Support per nom. Good and useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 23:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-08-05 05:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Musée Ingres-Bourdelle - Saint Jerome boetvaardig - Frans Pourbus (I) (Saint Jerome penitent)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-08-05 05:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Post office building in the St Aubin district of Toulouse North-west exposure

  Best in Scope Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-08-05 05:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Musée Ingres-Bourdelle - Ritratto di giovane uomo - Jan van Calcar (Portrait of young man)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2020-08-05 06:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Atys semistriata, shell

  Support very good and also used --Andrei (talk) 18:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Andrei (talk) on 2020-08-05 07:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Witold Sadowy
Used in:
4 wikis
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2020-08-05 14:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Fragmentary sarcophagus of Perpenya Blan († 1344) in Hyacinthe Rigaud Museum, Perpignan.
  •   Support Useful and best in scope -- Spurzem (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Spurzem (talk) on 2020-08-05 17:52 (UTC)
Scope:
DKW RT 125 W from 1949/50, front and left side

  Best in Scope Uncluttered view, not cropped, viewed from same level. Ideal for me. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2020-08-05 18:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Bidston Court Lodge
Used in:
Wikidata:Q26513608
Reason:
No signs of current occupation, and the lodge is side-on to the road outside, so the best and only shot is through the gates. -- Rodhullandemu (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2020-08-05 19:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Burhinus oedicnemus Ssp. saharae (Eurasian stone-curlew) eggs

  Support Useful and best in scope --Andrei (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 6 August 2020
Scope:
Matapa druna (Grey-branded Redeye), ventral
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2020-08-06 07:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Burhinus oedicnemus Ssp. insularum (Eurasian stone-curlew) eggs

  Support Useful and best in scope --Andrei (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-08-06 07:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Adhemarius dentoni Mounted specimen, male dorsal

  Support Useful and best in scope --Andrei (talk) 08:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-08-06 08:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Musée Ingres-Bourdelle - Saint Jérôme dans sa cellule - Philippe Gautard (Saint Jerome in his cell)
  •   Support Useful and quite a beautiful painting. Category:Philippe Gautard is the Commons category for the artist, though. I tried to tweak the scope slightly, but I was producing a red link, so I think I'll leave it to you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Good idea I modified. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-08-06 08:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Musée Ingres-Bourdelle - Portrait de Pierre de Bonzi, cardinal-archevêque de Narbonne - Jean de Troy
  •   Support Good image, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Andrei (talk) on 2020-08-06 08:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Arek Kluk
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Andrei (talk) on 2020-08-06 08:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Franciszek Sterczewski
Used in:
en and pl
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Spurzem (talk) on 2020-08-06 10:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Alte Rheinbrücke Neuwied, view from southwest
Used in:
de: Neuwied, de: Raiffeisenbrücke, pt: Neuwied, ru: Нойвид, uk: Нойвід
  •   Support Best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:33, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jaqen (talk) on 2020-08-06 16:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Michele Maggioli
Used in:
it:Michele Maggioli, d:Q3856678, arz:ميتشيل ماجيولى
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jaqen (talk) on 2020-08-06 16:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Franko Bushati
Used in:
en:Franko Bushati, it:Franko Bushati, d:Q3752047, arz:فرانكو بوشاتى
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jaqen (talk) on 2020-08-06 16:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Marco Spanghero
Used in:
it:Marco Spanghero, arz:ماركو سپانجيرو, d:Q18454275

  Support Useful & used --Andrei (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jaqen (talk) on 2020-08-06 16:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Riccardo Cortese
Used in:
it:Riccardo Cortese, d:Q3934411, arz:ريكاردو كورتيس

  Support Useful & used --Andrei (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2020-08-06 16:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Poulton Hey
Used in:
Wikidata:Q98102686
Reason:
Not as nice a day as the other pics but you can at least see all of the frontage. -- Rodhullandemu (talk)
  •   Support Useful and inspite of the weather good -- Spurzem (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2020-08-06 17:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Medieval marble relief of an owl, Campo Santo de Perpignan
  •   Support Useful and best in scope -- Spurzem (talk) 19:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-08-07 03:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Musée Ingres-Bourdelle - Saint Jérôme lisant - José de Ribera (Saint Jerome reading)

  Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-08-07 03:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Facade of Saint-Bertrand chapel, Grenade, Haute-Garonne

  Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-08-07 03:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Musée Ingres-Bourdelle - Portrait du Baron Le Pelletier, prefet de Tarn-et-Garonne - Louis-Léopold Boilly
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2020-08-07 05:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Haminoea hydatis ssp. cymoelia, shell

  Support Useful & used --Andrei (talk) 06:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Spurzem (talk) on 2020-08-07 13:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Dieter Quester in a BMW F269 (Formula 2) at the end of a training session at the GP of Germany on Nürburgring 1969
Used in:
de: Dieter Quester, de: Formel-2-Europameisterschaft, fr: Dieter Quester
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Andrei (talk) on 2020-08-07 20:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Poznan Pride, 2019
Used in:
pl wiki
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2020-08-08 05:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Retusa leptoeneilema, shell
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 8 August 2020
Scope:
Chersonesia intermedia (Wavy Maplet), dorsal
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
PetrVod (talk) on 2020-08-06 22:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Dr. Li Wenliang (Chinese doctor, covid-19 victim) - a portrait of a notable person
Used in:

In more than 30 language wiki platforms.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Li_Wenliang
Reason:
The only portrait of a personality in a given category -- PetrVod (talk)
  •   Comment Please link the Commons category that includes this photo and any others in scope. Also, the scope shouldn't have unnecessary words like "a portrait of a notable person". Have a look at scopes used in other nominations. And finally, I guess you didn't notice this, above your nomination: "en: DO NOT ADD NEW NOMINATIONS AT THE TOP OF THE LIST." (in several languages). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-08-08 07:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Musée Ingres-Bourdelle - Suzanne et les vieillards - Charles de La Fosse (Susanna and the Elders)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-08-08 07:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Mémorial à Marie-Louise Dissard 40, Rue de la Pomme, Toulouse France
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-08-08 07:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Musée Ingres-Bourdelle - Apollon et les muses - Giovanni Antonio Pellegrini (pollo and the muses)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2020-08-08 08:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Medieval marble inscription, Campo Santo de Perpignan
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2020-08-08 15:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Detail polder mill Zwaantje, Nijemirdum National monument.
  •   Support Beautiful and useful -- Spurzem (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Open for review.


Pending Most valued review candidatesEdit

Amy JacksonEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Yjenith (talk) on 2012-03-11 23:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Amy Jackson
  •   Oppose Copyrighted, no evidence of permission, so I am nominating for deletion. (Also, not geocoded!) cmadler (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment This photograph is released under creative commons Share like 3.0 license. The more appropriate copyright tag is added. Also geocoded for further review. --Yjenith (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Now   Support cmadler (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  •   Comment Who is this girl actually?--MrPanyGoff 20:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • This link doesn't helps a lot... I tend to oppose even I feel this nomination as some kind of insult.--MrPanyGoff 21:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  •   Info She is essentially a Bollywood actress. Article seems acceptable in en:WP (and 3 other WP), see en:Amy Jackson. --Myrabella (talk) 07:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • She is essentially a beauty pageant titleholder and not an actress at all. Since 2010 she just has tried to launch an actress career. There are thousands of girls like her. It seems that we have to place all of them in one group together with Sophia Loren, Gérard Philipe, Michel Piccoli, Jeremy Irons, Robert De Niro, Charles Chaplin, Claude Monet... Shame on all of us... We do nothing here. Alas, we have no choice since we work under the dictate of the crowd. Unfortunately, from a long time many articles in wikipedia cannot be used for reference at all. These articles can be marked for deletion.--MrPanyGoff 09:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Actually, this nomination seems quite promotional, linked with this new movie release: en:Ekk Deewana Tha where she has the leading female role. --Myrabella (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. MrPanyGoff 22:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

  Comment Because of the two VI in this scope I open this MVR. This photo here is the initial VI.--MrPanyGoff 08:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

  •   Support OK, this one is better. Yann (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
    •   Comment but you can't even see her face properly cause she is not looking at the camera, the crop is unfortunate cause the top of her head is missing,the blur is excessive with parts of her hair and right shoulder being blured. Just wanna know why you think this is better so atleast I can be clear about the criteria for a picture being VI.Boseritwik (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support I still support this one as best in scope and meeting all criteria. Certainly the edges of her hair and right shoulder are blurred, but her face is in focus at a high resolution. Also important to the present comparison, in the other image her forehead, chin, and cheeks are washed out by the flash/glare. cmadler (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. Amy jackson.jpg: +2 (current VI within same scope) <--
2. Amy Jackson attends press conference for 'Thaandavam' at London 04.jpg: +0 (second VI within same scope) <--
=>
File:Amy jackson.jpg: Promoted.
File:Amy Jackson attends press conference for 'Thaandavam' at London 04.jpg: Declined.
--MrPanyGoff 05:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
  •   Info Opening MVR. The other nomination can be found here. pandakekok9 08:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support - The other one has higher resolution, but we're supposed to judge the photos at review size, and in review size, this photo is much bigger. I also prefer the background, but that could be because I have sore eyes tonight. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 23:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
pandakekok9 on 2020-04-04 08:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Amy Jackson
Reason:
Compared to the current VI, I think this photo represents the scope better, because it has a higher resolution. And IMO, the subject facing the camera is more valuable. -- pandakekok9

  Comment I get a failure message about the image file containing errors if I try to open the full-resolution image in Firefox. --Bobulous (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
  Comment Ignore my last comment; a machine reboot and a forced page refresh caused it to finally load the image without error. Must have been a bad download followed by a stubborn local cache. --Bobulous ( talk) 20:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

  •   Support higher resolution & facing the camera --Arne (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per my remarks on the other one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment a crop of this one to exclude some of her body would split the difference and be best, imo. Buidhe (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@Buidhe: What do you think of this crop? pandakekok9 06:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 23:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Theresa May, portrait photographEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Yann (talk) on 2017-02-19 18:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Theresa May, portrait photograph
Reason:
UK Prime Minister. Best image, much better quality than her official portrait. Studio shot, so not geocoded. Used on many projects. -- Yann (talk)

  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

MVR: see also Commons:Valued image candidates/Theresa May (2015) (cropped).jpg

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 23:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
AlbanGeller (talk) on 2020-06-01 12:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Theresa May in 2015, portrait photograph
Used in:
Theresa May
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 23:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Oryx gazellaEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lycaon (talk) on 2009-02-12 16:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Oryx gazella (Gemsbok)
Used in:
en:Gemsbok, nl:Gemsbok, simple:Gemsbok, uk:Орікс
  •   Support Pose is less interesting, but I think the animal is better shown than on the previously nominated picture. --Eusebius (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 23:58, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2020-06-22 08:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Oryx gazella (Gemsbok) male
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 23:58, 6 August 2020 (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

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