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
26,358 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
23,232 (88.1%) 
Undecided
  
1,348 (5.1%) 
Declined
  
1,778 (6.7%) 



New valued image nominationsEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Wolfgang Moroder (talk) on 2017-05-17 08:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Pius XI by Adolfo Wildt
  • Realizing it's a matter of opinion, I will   Oppose this picture in favor of the other one, which I think makes a greater visual impact. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • On my behalf, allow me to say that, apart from personal gusto considerations, my image is technically way better--Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)-
  • I'm not arguing that point. VIC is about choosing the photo that is most useful as a thumbnail. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Declined if the last vote was added no later than 10:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Wolfgang Moroder (talk) on 2017-05-17 18:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Gesù e Maria (Rome) - Interior, central nave
  •   Comment May I comment that imo Livioandronico's take (I admire this fellow for the great work he did and is doing for WP) is overprocessed imo and has also unfortunately some technical glitches --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I agree Livioandronico's is over processed. In fact it does not look real and I for one wouldn't have voted for it at FPC. Therefore, I   Support Moroder's nomination. PumpkinSky talk 00:49, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I also support. Thanks for addressing the question. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 10:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
PumpkinSky talk on 2017-05-18 22:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Beagle, male tricolor, full body
Used in:
en:Beagle
Reason:
Is a QI.PumpkinSky talk 22:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC) -- PumpkinSky talk

  Oppose I don't think we can have a VI of this type of domesticated animal with all the possibilities of cross-breeding etc. Charles (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

  Comment @Charlesjsharp: I don't consider that a valid reason. For one thing, this is a fully recognized breed in multiple countries. For another, there are other VIs of domesticated species, setting ample precedent. PumpkinSky talk 09:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

  Comment Happy for other opinions, though yours is not best image of tricolour beagle and has completely different colouring (see Wikipedia article). I checked a couple of dog breeds and there are no VIs. Charles (talk) 10:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

  Comment But there are VIs of cats: Category:Felis_silvestris_catus# (only the second category of cats I checked); and chickens: Category:Chickens#. So you're saying we can have VIs of cats but not dogs? Of course the color pattern is different among various beagle individuals, the color pattern of Beagles varies widely; this should be a non-issue anyway. If you think another tricolor Beagle, (and whatever subscope, male full body or whatever), is better, then say so and kindly link to it. That would be a valid reason. But saying we can't have VIs at all of a major animal (Canine familiaris) just doesn't wash, especially when there are VIs of cats and chickens. PumpkinSky talk 11:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would have rejected the tortoiseshell cat VI had I been monitoring the candidate. It should never have got through. But we're talking dogs here, not cats. Just wait for others to give their opinion. (ps I assume you have the full pedigree going back 5 generations otherwise there's really no debate) Charles (talk) 18:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment There's plenty of room for debate. That you'd have rejected the cat photo is a non issue. We're talking your inexplicable desire to ban whole categories of animals from VI here. Generational pedigree has no bearing here. Where's the requirement for that? Do you have pedigrees for all those butterflies and other insects you photograph? This is nothing but your effort to inject your idea of rules that don't actually exist into the VI ruleset. Where does it say we can't have VIs on dogs? Show me. Oh wait, newsflash it doesn't exist. This isn't the first time you've tried to do this sort of thing at VI either. You didn't look too hard for dog VIs, see Category:Dogs#; click for VI and you'll find several. I checked the scope of one and it was "Lycaon pictus pictus (African wild dog) head". I wonder if the supporter checked the pedigree for that photo? The scope of another was "Sarplaninac with Herd". Was that pedigree checked? Doubt it because such as rule DOES NOT EXIST. If you're looking for a solo photo of a breed that's VI, see File:Greenland dog upernavik 2007-06-02 sample.jpg. VI REALLY needs to get some consistency in what is and isn't required and reviewers REALLY need to stop trying to add rules that don't exist. PumpkinSky talk 19:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Steady on. Don't get all personal. I know there is room for debate, which is why I said I am happy for other opinions. Charles (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Leandroxavier (talk) on 2017-05-19 17:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Antiprisms.
Used in:
English: Square antiprism
Português: Antiprisma quadrado
Français : Antiprisme carré

  Comment The scope is far too wide. Moreover this image better illustrates an anti-prism. Please read what VIs are about.! Martinvl (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Leandroxavier (talk) on 2017-05-19 17:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Snub dodecahedron right.
Used in:
English: Snub dodecahedron
Português: Dodecaedro torcido
Français : Dodécaèdre adouci
  •   Comment this file better represents a snub dodecahedron. Remember, this is a VI submission, not a QI submission. Martinvl (talk) 21:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
    • Martinvl: there is no way that is a better representation, this is just one angle and the candidate offers 360° view of this polyhedron, you are assuming that people have the ability to comprehend the whole object by one face, that is not true by the most of polyhedrons and for the most part of society (you can find studies about that, I don't remember the name in English for understand three-dimensional objects), we have to have the highest educational value, and the candidate is offering this. And this " Remember, this is a VI submission, not a QI submission. " was not necessary, and rude. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 20:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Rodrigo.ArgentonI disagree with your assertion. The diagram that I prefer clearly shows the three types of polyhedra that make up the snub dodecahedron - pentagons are in red, triangles that join the pentagons are in yellow and triangles that only touch the pentagons are in blue. The image that you are promoting i snowhere near as clear in showing this structure. Martinvl (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • This is not formed by three types polygons, this is formed by only two, 12 pentagons and 80 equilateral triangles. This 3 colours diagram, with no proper description mislead the reader, and again, you are assuming that any person will see one face and understand that pattern... this is not true. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 21:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Let's agree to differ. Martinvl (talk) 07:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-05-20 15:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Piper nigrum (Black Pepper) dried fruits with and without pericarp

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

  •   Comment Shouldn't this say Black pepper? And isn't this image more useful although the scope would have to be changed: File:Pfeffer-Gewürz.jpg? Charles (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

  Scope changed from Piper nigrumdried fruits with and without pericarp to Piper nigrum (Black Pepper) dried fruits with and without pericarp] {{{3}}}

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

  •   Comment @Jacek Halicki: @Charlesjsharp: Sure, I forgot the vernacular name. I added it to the scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Best in that carefully defined scope, and as a bonus, quite an interesting closeup at full size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 10:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Masum-al-Hasan (talk) on 2017-05-21 04:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Syed Abdullah Khalid
  •   Support - RIP! Useful photo, though if any decent photo without the distraction of part of another person in back of him can be uploaded to Commons, we should promote that over this for VI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 10:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-05-21 13:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Anthene larydas (Spotted ciliate blue) dorsal

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:25, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-05-21 13:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Anthene larydas (Spotted ciliate blue) ventral

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-05-21 13:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Uranothauma falkensteini (Lowland branded blue) ventral

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Christian Ferrer (talk) on 2017-05-21 13:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Julia L.S (ship, 1980)

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-05-21 15:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Perigonia lusca mounted specimen male dorsal

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-05-21 15:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Santa Giustina (Padua) - St. Benedict welcomes his disciples, Maurus and Placidus by Palma Il Giovane
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 18:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-05-21 15:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Facade of Santi Giovanni e Paolo (Venice) - The sarcophagus of the Doges Jacopo Tiepolo and Lorenzo Tiepolo
  •   Comment, I think we have a wee scope category error here. DeFacto (talk). 19:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment If the word "tomb" were replaced with the word "sarcophagus" in both the scope and the image description, I would be happy to support this submission. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word "tomb" usually relates to a burial place that is in the ground whereas a "sarcophagus" is a stone coffin. In all other respects, this submission, in my view, meets the requirements for a VI. Martinvl (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done Oops Tanks --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support, perfect now - useful and best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 17:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Coekon (talk) on 2017-05-21 21:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Picnic Bay Jetty in Magnetic Island
Reason:
The full view of the Picnic Bat Jetty -- Coekon (talk)
  •   Comment - You have to link at least part of your scope to a relevant Commons category. Look at other VI nominees in edit mode to see how it's done. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments. I have fixed it.--Coekon (talk) 10:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for fixing the scope. However, I have to   Oppose in favor of File:Picnic Bay jetty Stevage.jpg, in which the jetty is larger at thumbnail size, and which lacks the distraction of leaves in the foreground. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-05-21 21:09 (UTC)
Scope:
17 Market Square in Wałbrzych, facade
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 06:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-05-21 21:12 (UTC)
Scope:
18 Market Square in Wałbrzych, facade
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 06:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-05-21 21:18 (UTC)
Scope:
21 Market Square in Wałbrzych, facade
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 06:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-05-21 21:21 (UTC)
Scope:
21 Market Square in Wałbrzych, medaillons

  Support Useful --Llez (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-05-21 21:23 (UTC)
Scope:
22 Market Square in Wałbrzych,

  Support Best in scope --Llez (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2017-05-21 21:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Commemorative cross for Servatius von Tongern at Basilica of Saint Servatius in Maastricht, Netherlands.
Used in:
en:Servatius of Tongeren

  Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-05-22 15:11 (UTC)
Scope:
23 Market Square in Wałbrzych, facade
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 21:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-05-22 15:14 (UTC)
Scope:
23 Market Square in Wałbrzych, anchor

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-05-22 16:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Euchrysops malathana (Smoky bean cupid) female ventral

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-05-22 16:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Thermoniphas micylus (Common chalk blue) ventral

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-05-22 16:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Leptosia alcesta alcesta (Wood white) ventral

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2017-05-22 16:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Langweer Bridge over the Slingerrak in the Huiberweg. West side.
  • OK. But the other picture shows the entire bridge, so I think it's more useful as a thumbnail for the bridge. Is there another appropriate scope for this picture? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Answer: Fits into the Bridges category in the Frisian Lakes, and I can retrieve the picture.--Famberhorst (talk) 04:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, but that would be a parent category. What I'm suggesting is, maybe this could be a VI in some kind of more narrow or detailed category than that of the bridge. Otherwise, I'd tend to oppose this photo for VI in favor of the other one, for the reason I stated above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Answer: The bridge itself has no name. You can move the best.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I mean a narrower scope, not a narrower Commons category. I tend to confuse the words "scope" and "category". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • I do not understand you well. Sorry, that is because of the language barrier.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2017-05-22 17:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Turritella leucostoma (Tiger Turret), shell

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-05-22 17:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Perigonia lusca mounted specimen male ventral

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-05-22 17:15 (UTC)
Scope:
San Cassiano (Venice) - bell tower - East exposure
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 21:38, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-05-22 17:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Santa Giustina (Padua) - Conversion of St. Paul by Gaspare Diziani
  •   Support, useful and unique in scope. DeFacto (talk). 21:39, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Martinvl (talk) on 2017-05-22 20:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Inside The Vyne temporary roof cover (2017 restoration)
Reason:
We have very few VIs showing actual work in progress. This image attempts to address this shortcoming. -- Martinvl (talk)
  Info Any other images of this restoration should be placed in both categories. Martinvl (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Your nomination; your call. I'll abstain though and leave it for others to decide. DeFacto (talk). 18:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2017-05-22 21:34 (UTC)
Scope:
House mark "IN DEN VOGEL STRUYS / 1730", Maastricht (NL), Vrijthof 15.

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Wolfgang Moroder (talk) on 2017-05-23 06:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Fontana del Quirinale (Rome) - Statues of Dioscuri, view with Scuderie del Quirinale

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-05-23 12:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Catopsilia florella (African migrant) female ventral

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-05-23 12:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Belenois calypso calypso (Calypso caper white) male ventral

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-05-23 12:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Nepheronia thalassina thalassina (Cambridge vagrant) male ventral

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Berthold Werner (talk) on 2017-05-23 13:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Quirinuskapelle (Trier), from west
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Berthold Werner (talk) on 2017-05-23 13:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Theater Aachen, view from northwest

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-05-23 15:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Oceanodroma homochroa (Ashy storm petrel) egg

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Not an Ashy storm petrel as in the file description? Charles (talk) 21:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-05-23 16:00 (UTC)
Scope:
The multiplication of breads - Interior of Cathédrale Saint-Just de Narbonne - chapelle de l'Annonciade

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-05-23 16:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Interior of Chiesa dei Gesuiti (Venice), left transept - The Chapel of the Assumption
  •   Support, useful, and please note English spelling of "Assumption". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-05-23 21:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Minieuroland in Kłodzko, Bożków Palace

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-05-23 21:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Minieuroland in Kłodzko, house of Violetta Villas in Lewin Kłodzki
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-05-23 21:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Minieuroland in Kłodzko, franciscan monastery in Kłodzko

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-05-23 21:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Minieuroland in Kłodzko, basilica of the Visitation in Wambierzyce

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:49, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-05-23 21:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Minieuroland in Kłodzko, church of the Assumption in Kłodzko

  Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 12:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ikan Kekek (talk) on 2017-05-24 06:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Picnic Bay Jetty on Magnetic Island, Queensland
Used in:
w:Picnic Bay Jetty
Reason:
Most useful photo of the jetty, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk)

  Support Agree. Very nice photo. PumpkinSky talk 13:16, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Berthold Werner (talk) on 2017-05-24 12:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Münsterplatz 7-9 (Aachen), facade

  Support Best in scope --Llez (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Leandroxavier (talk) on 2017-05-24 13:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Bilunabirotunda.
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-05-24 12:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Catopsilia florella (African migrant) male ventral

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-05-24 15:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Appias sylvia sylvia (Common albatross) male ventral

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-05-24 15:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Larinopoda eurema (Western pierid blue) ventral

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2017-05-24 15:24 (UTC)
Scope:
House mark "Elephant - 1652" at Stokstraat 57, Maastricht (NL)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-05-24 17:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Perigonia lusca Mounted specimen female dorsal

  Support Useful --Llez (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-05-24 17:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Exterior of Santi Giovanni e Paolo (Venice) - Tomb of Marino Contarini.

  Support Useful --Llez (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-05-24 17:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Interior of Chiesa dei Gesuiti (Venice), the monument to the Doge Pasquale Cicogna

  Support Useful --Llez (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2017-05-24 17:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Turritella attenuata, shell

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Olivier LPB (talk) on 2017-05-24 22:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Église Notre-Dame-des-Ardilliers de Saumur - Stained glass of the Crown of Thorns

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m on 2017-05-25 05:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Harmonograph
Used in:
en

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
DeFacto (talk). on 2017-05-25 06:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Warwick Castle gatehouse from inside the courtyard
Used in:
en:Warwick Castle

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:13, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.



Pending Most valued review candidatesEdit

To initiate a most valued review, please go to the dedicated MVR sub page.
Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache

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

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

ScopeEdit

   
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
~ Moheen (keep talking) on 2017-05-21 21:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Tilottama by Raja Ravi Varma
Used in:
See Global usage
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
~ Moheen (keep talking) on 2017-05-21 21:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Tilottama by Raja Ravi Varma
Used in:
See Global usage
  •   Question - Undoubtedly, this is a more useful thumbnail, but why is the file so much smaller? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • But it seems that this one is original artwork. ~ Moheen (keep talking) 18:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
  • It definitely looks like a more believable reproduction of the actual look of an artwork. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.

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