Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

Commons:Valued image candidates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Skip to current candidates Valued Image links:

How to nominate an image for VI statusEdit

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

Adding a new nomination (image)Edit

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


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

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

|My-image-filename.jpg

so that it looks like this:

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

and save the candidate list.


RenominationEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

|nominator=~~~

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

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

Step 6: Add the candidate to the candidates list.

How to open a Most Valued ReviewEdit

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

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

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

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

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

How to review the candidatesEdit

How to review an imageEdit

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

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

Review procedureEdit

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


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


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

Changes in scope during the review periodEdit

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

You can submit new nominations starting on COM:VIC.

Pending valued image candidatesEdit

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache
29,839 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
26,379 (88.4%) 
Undecided
  
1,553 (5.2%) 
Declined
  
1,907 (6.4%) 



New valued image nominationsEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2018-02-13 15:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Opel Monza Concept - rear, Gull-wing door
Used in:
de:Opel Monza, es:Opel Monza
Reason:
It's unlikely to get a better shot of this model anytime soon -- Alexander-93 (talk)
  •   Oppose, sorry I think we need an image with the doors closed for this scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    •   Support, now I see the scope has changed - useful and best in the new scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support (but only to cancel out the other vote; i don'think the scope deserves a VI) the winged doors is what makes this car special, with closed doors you woudnt notice. --C.Suthorn (talk) 10:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC) --C.Suthorn (talk) 19:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment You're both right. A photo with scope of just the rear usually should have the doors shut. With this photo and VI a scope change noting the doors open and I would probably support. I'm open but I think the doors do make this car unique so the doors should be in the scope. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 08:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Just change scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I changed the scope to "Opel Monza Concept - rear, Gull-wing door"-- Alexander-93 (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 01:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
C.Suthorn (talk) on 2018-02-13 18:47 (UTC)
Scope:
First ever Same-sex marriage in Germany
Used in:
de:Gleichgeschlechtliche_Ehe#Beschluss_des_Bundestages_(2017)

Previous reviews

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 01:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
C.Suthorn (talk) on 2018-02-13 18:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Protest against Demo für Alle in Berlin
Used in:
de:Gleichgeschlechtliche_Ehe#Beschluss_des_Bundestages_(2017)

Previous reviews

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 01:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
C.Suthorn (talk) on 2018-02-14 06:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Samantha Pressdee
Used in:
an uncropped version is used in en:Lauri Love
Reason:
per Ikan Kekek, Ercé Commons:Valued image candidates/Protesting for the release of Lauri Love 02.jpg User_talk:Archaeodontosaurus#VI_Samantha_Pressdee previously opposing voters did not argue in favor of their arguments --C.Suthorn (talk) 06:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC) -- C.Suthorn (talk)
  Question How often will be this lady without a shirt still presented in the silly pose? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 08:21, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Previous reviews

  •   Comment - I'm not sure I understand this renomination. I believe the previous nomination deadlocked 2-2. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
    • Please read the linked diskussion on the talk page of the closer. --C.Suthorn (talk) 11:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Your claim is that the opposers didn't give proper reasons to oppose. I agree that Spurzem's global objections to topless photos are silly and irrelevant to the project, but I disagree that Martinvl's objections weren't well-reasoned. Please make an argument that Samantha Pressdee is herself sufficiently notable to merit an article, and that this is the best photo for the scope of all photos of Samantha Pressdee on Commons. If your argument persuades me, I'll be totally willing to vote once again to support this photo for VI. But I actually think it's probably best for you to tweak the scope to something like "c|Samantha Pressdee topless in protest of the detention of Lauri Love". What do you think? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
    • @Ikan Kekek: You understood me wrong. There are many beautiful and esthetic photos of topless women but this one we have to discuss here is no of them. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
      • That's not a voting issue. The only questions should be whether the scope is valid, the file is best in scope, and the picture isn't so technically poor that it doesn't represent the scope adequately even if it's the best of a technically bad lot. You don't have to find the photo appealing. That's irrelevant. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
      • You really think we should decide whether or not to promote an image of a woman by evaluating her "beauty"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Its like being flashed every time I visit this page. Please stop. ThayneT (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  • No, YOU stop! Your negative vote is INVALID! Where is the criterion that nudity is prohibited at VIC? You are abusing the project and need to cross out your oppose vote. I will   Support to annul your vote. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment So you are saying I cannot express my opinion? ThayneT (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm at a failure to understand why this image is valuable. I expressed my thoughts upon it. I am a woman, I have that right too btw not to show my breasts.ThayneT (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - No-one is asking you to show your breasts, so I don't understand what you're getting at there. You have the right to express your opinion, but objecting to public toplessness is not a legitimate reason under Commons:Valued image criteria (which I'd ask you to please read if you have not already done so) to oppose a VI nomination. Others gave reasons below why they don't consider the scope notable. That's a legitimate reason to oppose under the rules. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment So me being offended isn't a good enough reason to consider the image not to be valuable? It sounds to me like someone is very, very passionate about this issue and in particular this person and is pushing for their own personal agendas, especially posting the same photo again and again. My vote is still NO!!!! for this very legitimate reason. ThayneT (talk) 01:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Yes, being offended by an image is not a valid reason to vote against a VI. Am I extremely passionate about women being topless on the street? Not at all. But that's just as irrelevant a reason to oppose a VI as opposition to war would be to oppose an image that shows a battle and otherwise fulfills the VI criteria. I think some of the art objects that are nominated here don't have much artistic merit, but I'm aware that they have encyclopedic merit, so I often support photos of them for VI even so. No-one says you have to support a photo that offends you, but opposing it because the content offends you smacks to me of censorship, and Wikimedia at least in theory opposes censorship, although that opposition for some reason doesn't seem to be observed at VIC when it comes to a couple of breasts being shown. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - I should add that I'd be a hell of a lot more sympathetic to opposing an FPC nomination because you find it disgusting. FPs are featured on the front page of the site. VIs have a different function, which is simply to represent a scope well. I oppose whaling, but a good photo of a whaling hunt could be instructive in an online article about whaling. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I'm just amazed. If a man showed off their penis and said it was for "men's rights" and you put it up on the front page of Wikipedia and applauded him for it- I would also be deeply offended. It goes both ways and just because you are a woman I don't believe that different rules and social mores should apply to you. Get the porn off the site, there is also the other 3/4 of the world to think about here folks, not just westerners see this stuff. Anyway that is my thought upon it and no I'm not marking any day on the calendar when you feel like strutting your stuff naked on the front page, no matter who you are or what you are saying. Wow. I have freedoms too, and I would like to exercise them which includes being offended. ThayneT (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  Question @ThayneT: "I will try not to let my personal bias get in the way of real science and providing information for people to make up their own mind" maybe it would help if you read the whole discussion again? Your vote is not inline with the 6 criteria and I very kindly ask you to withdraw it. --C.Suthorn (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment You have already informed me that my vote did not count. I am expressing my opinion. I think it is RUDE and OFFENSIVE to keep reposting the same photo over and over again and I am offended. It wasn't the first time I saw it that I was offended, it was more like the 20th since I kept checking back on this page to see how my own photos were fairing, and after this conversation, I will NEVER again add my photos to this category. I do not want to be in the company of such and I don't care if there are only 3 photos of the species photo I shot in the world and the other two are blurry and in the dark. I don't need a little gold star that bad, but someone sure does and is getting it as well as the front page. I ask- WHAT DID WE LEARN HERE? Because we learned something about values, didn't we? ThayneT (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment @ThayneT: You might want to mark 27 september 2018 in the calendar, so that you do not get offended by the FP of the day. It is also interesting to learn from the FPC user:Spurzem's definition of beauty and silly poses. And user:Martinvl might like to elaborate about how that FP falls into Common's scope at all, as neither model nor photographer are even redlinked, the motif is not clear, neither historic, nor a known work of art from an art book or museum, no context or indication of notability, apart from apperaring in the polish wikipedia pornography article in connection with - of all people - Pope John Paul II. --C.Suthorn (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

  Oppose My understanding is that a person to whom a VI relates should be eligible for a Wikipedia article in the language most closely associated with them. The English Language Wikipedia, in this article (Note 8), has the following text regarding "Creative professionals": An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer. I do not believe that a single review meets the required criteria. Martinvl (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Also opposed by me, so not soon every photo of a girl who jumps half naked on the street, is valuable. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 12:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Per others. --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:12, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 [discuter] on 2018-02-14 11:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Manoir de Cosquiez

  Comment I would prefer the second photo you made of this castle. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 13:19, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Ok, but I find that the wall hides the facade. Gzen92 [discuter] 14:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
C.Suthorn (talk) on 2018-02-16 08:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Autokorso in support of Deniz Yücel

  Comment The turkish prime minister visited germany this week and commented on Yücel. In the year since his arrest a dozen Autokorsos have been hold. Thousends have taken fotos, hundreds of journalists have attended, Die Welt has a counter on the cover page everyday. Still this korso-images by me are the only in Wikipedia. The Korso started in Yücels hometown at the Stadthalle. I got there via Anne-Frank-Weg and Maximilian-Kolbe-Weg passing Sophie-Scholl-Schule/Graf-Stauffenberg-Gymnasium. (disclosure: yes, this nomination is also a comment on the disturbing oppose reasons of the Pressdee image.) --C.Suthorn (talk) 08:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

  •   Oppose Let's put politics aside for the moment. Quality standards for VI are pretty low, but this is far below the modern mobile phone quality required per criterion 3. Sorry for being this blunt, but it looks like it was shot through a bottle of Vaseline even at the tiny default review size. And even with sufficient quality it would be difficult to actually identify this as a en:Motorcade (or whatever the appropriate english translation would be). --El Grafo (talk) 10:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Please PLEASE C.Suthorn try to submit higher quality images to VI. Charles (talk) 11:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
    • The vast maiority of wp-readers do not even know, there are images in wikipedia apart from thumbs and gallerys. the few who do mostly ever only see the image viewer, that only uses part of the browser window, that uses part of the screen, that in most cases is fullhd or less. On mobile devices the most common resolution is 1280x720 in portrait mode, so the a horizontal image will nearly never be seen wider than 720 pixel. Even at that size the Free Deniz slogan is readable. On saturday all german newspapers had the image of Yücel hugging his wife on the cover page. That image, that millions will remember is not available to wikipedia. I don't have anything better, no one else has uploaded anything more adequate, and no one is likely to do in the future. While Yücel is free, the situation for which Yücel's case is examplary will be even more notable with 3 journalists having been sentenced tp prison terms on the same day, the nato members usa and turkey engaging in the same military conflict on different sides. --C.Suthorn (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Just because we wish we had a VI of a subject doesn't mean we have a VI of every subject. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Apart from the miserable quality of the photo, I wonder where the meaning of the recording should be. I see blurry cars and nothing else. There is no indication of why they are standing or driving there. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 14:50, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Declined if the last vote was added no later than 01:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2018-02-16 17:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Tinamus major egg of (great tinamou)
  •   Comment - Seems most useful. I suppose the different color of these eggs is simply a variant, like brown vs. white chicken eggs? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - In the collection it is the only egg of this species. --Ercé (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Do you have any idea which color is more common? Should we have two separate scopes for each color of tinamus eggs? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   CommentSorry, but I do not see why we should separate "deviant" colors from common colors-which we do not know; it is precisely the interest of this remarkable collection of eggs! --82.237.200.214 20:13, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-02-17 05:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Nyceryx riscus Mounted specimen female dorsal

  Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-02-17 05:44 (UTC)
Scope:
The circumcision of Jesus by Niccolò Bambini in Scuola Grande dei Carmini (Venice)

  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-02-17 05:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Rue Peyrolières (Toulouse) - viewed from Rue Gambetta to the south.

  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2018-02-17 06:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Paeonia 'Duchesse de Nemours' ( peony) Flower.
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2018-02-17 10:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Tinamus solitarius egg of (solitary tinamou)
  •   Support Useful, used and best in scope. --Basotxerri (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-02-17 10:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Fulica cristata (Red-knobbed coot) non-breeding plumage
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-02-17 10:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Gyps rueppellii erlangeri (Rüeppell's griffon vulture) in flight
  •   Support Useful, used and best in scope. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-02-17 10:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Bycanistes brevis (Silvery-cheeked hornbills) pair; male (left) female (right)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-02-17 11:58 (UTC)
Scope:
The Lyceum, Liverpool entrance
Used in:
en:The Lyceum, Liverpool

  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2018-02-17 12:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Wayside cross in Bitche, rue Général Stuhl
Used in:
fr:Bitche
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:20, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Basotxerri (talk) on 2018-02-17 16:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Tower of Mendoza, in Álava, Basque Country, Spain, view direction N
Used in:
en:Tower of Mendoza

  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
-- DeFacto (talk). on 2018-02-17 17:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Kiss an' make-it-up by Erskine Nicol
Used in:
en:The New Art Gallery Walsall

  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
-- DeFacto (talk). on 2018-02-17 17:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Two Peasants Binding Faggots by Pieter Brueghel the Younger
Used in:
en:Barber Institute of Fine Arts
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2018-02-17 17:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Hyundai Vision G Concept Coupé
Used in:
de:Genesis (Automarke)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2018-02-17 18:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Moulin de Dislach, Haguenau, France.
Used in:
fr:Haguenau
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Basotxerri (talk) on 2018-02-17 19:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Tower of Mendoza, in Álava, Basque Country, Spain, view direction N
Used in:
es:Torre de Mendoza
  •   Comment Please explain the real difference to the previous nomination. --Palauenc05 (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
  • One is view direction N, one is view direction NE. One is a front view, one is a side view. If that's not possible, it's my error of understanding and I withdraw. --Basotxerri (talk) 16:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Milan Bališin (talk) on 2018-02-17 20:14 (UTC)
Scope:
View of peak Štiavnica from peak Vihorlat (distance 180 km) in the winter
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
ThayneT (talk) on 2018-02-17 23:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Acer macrophyllum (Bigleaf maple) in flower
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-02-18 05:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Nyceryx riscus Mounted specimen female ventral
  •   Support Usefull --Ercé (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-02-18 05:51 (UTC)
Scope:
The faith by Niccolò Bambini in Scuola Grande dei Carmini (Venice)
  •   Support Usefull --Ercé (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-02-18 05:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Tissue Merchant, Mingqi, Musée Georges Labit Toulouse
  •   Support Best in scope --Ercé (talk) 07:48, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2018-02-18 07:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Glaucidium passerinum egg of (Eurasian pygmy owl)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2018-02-18 07:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Art of Siwa-engraved round ring
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2018-02-18 13:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Opel Motoclub "Tour", front and left side
Used in:
de: Opel Motoclub

  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2018-02-18 13:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Mercedes-Benz Concept GLC Coupé
Used in:
de:Liste der Konzeptfahrzeuge von Mercedes-Benz, de:Mercedes-Benz C 253, en:Mercedes-Benz GLC-Class, fr:Mercedes-Benz Type 253, ru:Mercedes-Benz GLC-класс, uk:Mercedes-Benz GLC Coupe
Reason:
It's unlikely to get a better shot of this model anytime soon -- Alexander-93 (talk)
  •   Question - Is this truly unique in scope for Commons, as it appears to be in its category? If so, I think it's useful enough to be a VI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
~Moheen (keep talking) on 2018-02-18 15:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of Jannatul Nayeem Avril
Used in:
See Global usage
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-02-18 15:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Crithagra striolata striolata (Streaky seedeater) head
  •   Support Very good, nice and useful -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-02-18 15:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Passer swainsonii (Swainson's sparrow)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-02-18 15:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Phalacrocorax lucidus (White-breasted cormorant)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
~Moheen (keep talking) on 2018-02-18 15:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of Jessia Islam
Used in:
See Global usage
  Comment Don't we have a better portrait of this girl? Here she looks very sad. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 08:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - I agree with Surzem that this is not best in scope. File:Jessia Islam in Dhaka 01.jpg is best in scope, IMO, or if we want just a head shot, File:Jessia Islam.jpg is best of all. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment I recognize that my vote is not very charitable. But the expression of the young lady who realizes suddenly that winning the contest she will have to pose with a feather of the head is extraordinary and reflects its disarray  .--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2018-02-18 16:37 (UTC)
Scope:
NSU Rennfox from 1952, engine, right side
Used in:
de:NSU Fox, nl: NSU Fox-serie]]

  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2018-02-18 17:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Leo Kinnunen driving Porsche 935 on the Nürburgring in 1977
Used in:
de:Porsche 935, de:Leo Kinnunen, en:Leo Kinnunen, fi:Leo Kinnunen, fr:Leo Kinnunen, it:Leo Kinnunen, pl:Leo Kinnunen

  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
XRay talk on 2018-02-18 17:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Schöpfwerk Greetsiel
Used in:
de:Liste der Baudenkmale in Greetsiel

  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
-- DeFacto (talk). on 2018-02-18 18:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Morgan 4-4 Series I - rear three-quarters
Used in:
British Motor Museum, en:Morgan 4/4
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
-- DeFacto (talk). on 2018-02-18 18:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Morgan Super Sports - front three-quarters
Used in:
British Motor Museum, en:Morgan Motor Company
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
-- DeFacto (talk). on 2018-02-18 18:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Morgan Super Sports - rear three-quarters
Used in:
British Motor Museum, en:Morgan Motor Company
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2018-02-18 21:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Portal of "Ancienne Chancellerie", now museum and tourist office, in Haguenau, France.
  •   Support Useful and best in scope -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2018-02-18 23:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Mazda Koeru
Used in:
de:Mazda CX-4, fr:Mazda Koeru, ja:マツダ・CX-4, ru:Mazda CX-4, zh:馬自達CX-4
Reason:
It's unlikely to get a better shot of this model anytime soon -- Alexander-93 (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2018-02-18 23:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Mazda Koeru - rear
Used in:
de:Mazda CX-4, fr:Mazda Koeru, ja:マツダ・CX-4, zh:馬自達CX-4
Reason:
It's unlikely to get a better shot of this model anytime soon -- Alexander-93 (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-02-19 05:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Marumba dyras dyras Mounted specimen male dorsal

  Support useful Charles (talk) 10:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-02-19 06:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Commemorative plaque on the site of the old Casa Polo (Venice)
  •   Support - Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-02-19 06:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Christ on the cross with Cardinal Guilhem Peire Godin in prayer Musée des Augustins de Toulouse
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2018-02-19 06:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Reformierte Kirche Molinis Reformierte Kirche. Main entrance.
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2018-02-19 07:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Phaethon aethereus egg of (red-billed tropicbird)
  •   Support - Useful, and what a pretty egg! It looks like granite. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jaqen (talk) on 2018-02-19 08:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Muretto di Alassio: signature of Jacques Prévert
Used in:
br:Jacques Prévert, fr:Jacques Prévert, it:Jacques Prévert,, tr:Jacques Prévert, etc.
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jaqen (talk) on 2018-02-19 09:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Brandon Sanderson
Used in:
ca:Brandon Sanderson, da:Brandon Sanderson, el:Μπράντον Σάντερσον, eu:Brandon Sanderson, is:Brandon Sanderson, ka:ბრენდონ სანდერსონი, ca:Brandon Sanderson, la:Brandon Sanderson, nl:Brandon Sanderson, pl:Brandon Sanderson, ro:Brandon Sanderson
Reason:
File:Brandon Sanderson sign.jpg is more widely used but his eyes are not visible. File:Brandon Sanderson.jpg has higher resolution but the face is smaller and slightly out of focus. -- Jaqen (talk)

  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2018-02-19 09:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Wey VV7
Used in:
cs:Wey (automobilka), de:Wey (Automarke), de:Wey VV7, wikidata:Q31839250
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2018-02-19 09:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Wey VV7 - rear
Used in:
de:Wey VV7
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2018-02-19 09:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Wey P8
Used in:
de:Wey (Automarke), de:Wey P8
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-02-19 10:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Phalacrocorax lucidus (White-breasted cormorant) playing with feather
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-02-19 10:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Dendrocygna viduata (White-faced whistling duck) sub-adult
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-02-19 10:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Milvus aegyptius aegyptius (Yellow-billed kite) in flight
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2018-02-19 11:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Marie-Dominique-Auguste SIBOUR (1792 - 1857), portrait photograph.
Used in:
fr:Marie Dominique Auguste Sibour
Reason:
Alone in scope. Archbishop of Paris, Mgr Sibour was stabbed to death by a punished priest in the church Saint-Etienne Du Mont during a ceremony, january 3, 1857. Restored by me. Original available as usual as first upload, in use, no geocode, it is a studio shot. -- Jebulon (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 [discuter] on 2018-02-19 11:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Chapelle Saint-Jean de Plougonvelin, interior.
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2018-02-19 11:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Morgan Threewheeler with J.A.P.-engine on Nürburgring in motion, front and left side
Used in:
ca:Morgan Motor Company, de:Dreirad, de:Morgan Threewheeler, eo:Triciklo, es:Morgan Motor Company, fr:JAP (moteur)
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2018-02-19 11:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Water cooled Matchless engine of Morgan Threewheeler
Used in:
de: Morgan Threewheeler

  Best in Scope, interesting detail. --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2018-02-19 11:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Morgan Threewheeler from 1933 with Matchless engine in motion on Nürburgring
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2018-02-19 16:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Armand Reclus, portrait photograph
Used in:
fr:Armand Reclus
Reason:
Alone in scope. By Nadar, Restored by me. A good photograph of this french Navy officer, geographer, explorer of Central America, searching the best place for the Panama Canal. In use. No geocode for a studio shot. -- Jebulon (talk)
  •   Support Very good image, used and useful -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2018-02-19 18:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Onésime Reclus, portrait photograph
Used in:
fr:Onésime Reclus
Reason:
Alone in scope. Very good quality portrait of this geographer, famous for being the inventor of the word "francophonie". By Nadar, restored by me. Brother of Armand Reclus (above). In use, without geocode as it is a studio portrait. -- Jebulon (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
-- DeFacto (talk). on 2018-02-19 19:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Daimler Grafton Phaeton (registration mark AD 1897) - rear three-quarters
Used in:
British Motor Museum, en:Phaeton body
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
PJDespa (talk) on 2018-02-19 22:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Canal lock in Poulseur (old canal lock)
Reason:
This picture has an historical and technical interest : see Project of canal to link Meuse to Moselle. This page is not translated in English yet but it is not madatory to nominate an image as valued image. -- PJDespa (talk)

  Question Of more than local interest? Charles (talk) 11:38, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

  •   Comment I answered your question by fullfilling the field reason. See above.Tank you.--PJDespa (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-02-20 06:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Marumba dyras dyras Mounted specimen male ventral

  Support useful Charles (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-02-20 06:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Allegory of Hope by Niccolò Bambini in Scuola Grande dei Carmini (Venice)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-02-20 06:12 (UTC)
Scope:
David slaying Goliath, by Antonin Mercié, Musée des Augustins de Toulouse
  •   Support Usefull --Ercé (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2018-02-20 07:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Phaethon lepturus egg of (white-tailed tropicbird)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 [discuter] on 2018-02-20 09:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Pulpit of église Saint-Étienne, Mackenheim
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-02-20 11:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Motacilla flava thunbergi (Yellow wagtail) male
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-02-20 11:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Vanessa abyssinica abyssinica (Abyssinian admiral) underside
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-02-20 11:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Acraea safie (Acraea butterfly) dorsal
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-02-20 16:21 (UTC)
Scope:
12 - 16 Bold Street, Liverpool, 10 Bold Street, Liverpool
Used in:
en:Grade II listed buildings in Liverpool-L1
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 [discuter] on 2018-02-20 17:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Gas chamber, Natzweiler-Struthof concentration camp
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 [discuter] on 2018-02-20 17:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Mémorial national de la déportation
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-02-20 19:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Central Hotel, Liverpool
Used in:
en:Grade II listed buildings in Liverpool-L1
Open for review.



Pending Most valued review candidatesEdit

Columba guinea guinea (Speckled pigeon)Edit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-01-31 10:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Columba guinea guinea (Speckled pigeon)
  •   Support - You've got strong competition from File:Speckledpigeon.JPG, which is arguably a clearer though lower-resolution picture of the bird itself, but ultimately, the deciding factor for me is the glary window in that photo vs. your bokeh background, which makes it easier to see the pigeon. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Very good picture, but the other one is more useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 01:48, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-02-10 16:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Columba guinea guinea (Speckled pigeon)
  •   Support - More useful because of the greater contrast. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 01:48, 19 February 2018 (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