Open main menu
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.

Contents

You can submit new nominations starting on COM:VIC.

Pending valued image candidatesEdit

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache
36,006 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
32,156 (89.3%) 
Undecided
  
1,785 (5%) 
Declined
  
2,065 (5.7%) 



New valued image nominationsEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Hjart (talk) on 2019-08-16 14:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Pedestrian zone sign at Fiskergade in Ribe, Denmark
Used in:
OpenStreetMap Wiki - Tagːhighwaʏ=pedestrian
Reason:
Only image illustrating the "pedestrian zone + driving allowed" concept -- Hjart (talk)
  •   Comment Look at the modification of your appointment. There remain two problems. A technique: your image and tilted it must be straightened; take the opportunity to align the verticals. You have to give the name of the place in the scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  Comment The sign (which was the primary subject) is fairly well aligned. I have no idea how to "align the verticals". Note that most of the physical walls in this street (particularly the house to the left) aren't perfectly vertical and that the image was taken with a Garmin Virb, which tends to be somewhat fisheyed. --Hjart (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Ok now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose The image shows a street with a sign, not the sign itself. Charles (talk) 08:32, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Info The sign was the primary reason for taking this image and the primary use for it and now it's tilted :-/ I included the street as a sort of "background"/"illustration". --Hjart (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Hjart (talk) 15:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC) on 2019-08-16 15:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Ribe Gamle Rådhus
  •   Comment There are several problems. I do not know what I'm looking at There is a name in the scope but I do not know if it is the building the name of the street or that of the city. I do not know what is the purpose of this building, if you do not make caption in English your audiance will be limited to your city. it requires a good scope and a good caption that gives its information. There is a problem of tilt and distortion of perscpective that must be corrected is easy. But the big problem is that it lacks a piece of building. There may be a nest, a statue or a flag on this missing piece so the picture does not describe the building well. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  Info I have added an english description of the building. I have absolutely no experience with correcting tilt or perspective and no idea how to fix it. --Hjart (talk) 10:53, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  Comment Experience with correcting tilt or perspective is essential for VI. Charles (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-08-17 04:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Winter by Jules-Jacques Labatut - Musée des Augustins, de Toulouse
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 13:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2019-08-17 06:01 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Andreas, Neudingen, left side altar
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 13:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2019-08-17 06:02 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Andreas, Neudingen, right side altar
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 13:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Franz van Duns (talk) on 2019-08-17 15:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Pocket watch movements
Used in:
Pocket watch, Taschenuhr, Category:Pocket watch movements
Reason:
(1) This is the reverse of a more than a century old, but well-maintained pocket watch displaying a clockwork in much more detail than any other image uploaded to wiki commons.
(2) Due to this high resolution not only the silver hallmark at top left is distinctly illustrated, but also the technical finesses of the balance wheel, the polished cogs, and the fine engravings all over.
(3) This image was recently promoted to Featured picture status within wiki commons. -- Franz van Duns (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-08-18 04:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Hôtel Dumay in Toulouse, the inner courtyard and the north facade
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-08-18 04:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Lot e le figlie (Lot and his daughters) by Pietro Ricchi, Ca' Rezzonico - Venice

  Comment Please check the link --Llez (talk) 05:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-08-18 04:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Beaux-Arts de Carcassonne - Les vaches - Edouard-Bernard Debat-Ponsan

  Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 05:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2019-08-18 05:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Domiporta praestantissima, shell
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
George Ho (talk) on 2019-08-18 07:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Christopher Nolan
Reason:
The photo may not be big right now, or it is below 700px. Nonetheless, the posture, the smile, and the head position looks best as-is. -- George Ho (talk)
  •   Comment There is no objective basis to decide that this is the most valuable image. Charles (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Sorry, I don't agree. Charles (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2019-08-18 17:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Dijkwerker (Afsluitdijk) 'De Steenzetter', artwork of Ineke van Dijk.
  •   Support useful. Charles (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-08-19 04:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Theretra nessus mounted specimen male dorsal

  Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 06:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-08-19 04:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Ritratto di Procuratore (Portrait of Procurator) by Antonio Bellucci, Ca' Rezzonico - Venice
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-08-19 04:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Beaux-Arts de Carcassonne - Paysage - Louis-Auguste Lapito
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2019-08-19 06:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Triticum aestivum, fruits and seeds, dried specimen
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2019-08-19 06:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Pyrenaearia cantabrica, shell
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2019-08-19 06:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Pilgrimage and monastery church "Maria Loreto", Stühlingen
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rocky Masum (talk) on 2019-08-19 09:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Arial view of Rajshahi city
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2019-08-19 22:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Gonepteryx cleopatra italica (Cleopatra) male underside
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-08-20 05:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Theretra nessus male ventral

  Info The categories are missing at the description side --Llez (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-08-20 05:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Ratto di Europa (The Rape of Europa) by Antonio Bellucci, Ca' Rezzonico - Venice

  Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 05:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-08-20 05:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Beaux-Arts de Carcassonne - Etude de tête et torse d'homme - Ingres

  Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 05:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2019-08-20 05:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Strigatella paupercula (Poor Mitre), shell
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2019-08-20 05:37 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Georg, Mundelfingen, interior
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2019-08-20 05:38 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Georg, Mundelfingen, organ gallery
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Bautsch (talk) on 2019-08-19 09:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Video recording of a meteor of the Perseids
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2019-08-20 16:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Eastern Lodge, Flaybrick Memorial Gardens
Used in:
Listed buildings in Birkenhead
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-08-21 04:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Betel nut bag, New Guinea, nineteenth century
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-08-21 04:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Sebastiano Bombelli paintings - Ritratto di gentiluomo in parrucca (Portrait of a gentleman in a wig) - Ca' Rezzonico, Venice
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-08-21 04:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Beaux-Arts de Carcassonne - Combat de Romains et de Gaulois - Evariste-Vital Luminais
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2019-08-21 05:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Strigatella coronata (Coronate Mitre), shell
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2019-08-21 05:57 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Georg, Mundelfingen, chancel
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2019-08-21 05:58 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Georg, Mundelfingen, pulpit
Open for review.


Pending Most valued review candidatesEdit

Slough Amberwing (Perithemis domitia) maleEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2015-11-07 16:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Perithemis domitia (Slough Amberwing) male

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Slightly inferior to the other one, I think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 13:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2019-06-26 13:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Perithemis domitia (Slough amberwing) male
  •   Support - Both good, but this one seems a bit clearer, at least partly due to the background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 13:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Pink-spotted hawkmothEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2015-11-06 11:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Agrius cingulata (Pink-spotted hawkmoth) dorsal

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  •   Oppose compared to the other. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support This Image shows much more than the next. The legs and a part of the very colorful hindwing, which is important for this species. VI is not a question of esthetics but of value and utility. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 13:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2019-07-08 12:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Agrius cingulata (Pink-spotted hawkmoth) male dorsal
  •   Support - Much clearer with much more separation from the background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose This image shows the insect in camouflage position it is very pretty but makes the identification very difficult. It has less value than the previous one. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 13:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Gare - couloir nord (Strasbourg)Edit

   
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Gzen92 [discuter] on 2019-06-11 11:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Couloir nord de la Gare de Strasbourg
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 [discuter] on 2019-07-17 10:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Couloir nord de la Gare de Strasbourg

  Comment other photo in the same place, the colors are better, the camera (up right) is less blurry, Gzen92 [discuter] 10:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 13:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Brown-throated three-toed slothEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2016-01-13 09:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Bradypus variegatus (Brown-throated three-toed sloth) female
  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 13:52, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 13:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2019-08-03 14:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Bradypus variegatus (Brown-throated sloth) female
  •   Comment This one is the best because it shows the brown throats. But there is a big problem of color, the yellow is supersaturated: the coat must be gray. Easy to correct. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Done New version uploaded. Charles (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 13:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Meghla Park Lake‎Edit

   
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
~Moheen (keep talking) on 2019-08-21 06:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Meghla Park Lake
Used in:
See global usage
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
~Moheen (keep talking) on 2019-08-21 06:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Meghla Park Lake
Used in:
See global usage
Open for review.

Old World swallowtailEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Fbnpch (talk) on 2013-08-22 15:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Papilio machaon (Swallowtail) ventral side
Used in:
de:Schwalbenschwanz; en:Papilio machaon; fr:Papilio machaon

  Comment Several problems. There is already an image VI promoted for this scope. The binomial name is always in italics and should be followed in the scope of the common name in English in brackets. The image can be promoted if the scope is reduced to "ventral side". Overall, the scope would be good ''[[Papilio machaon]]'' (Swallowtail) ventral side . Problem with the caption does not give the location of the photograph, it also takes a geocoding.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 13:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2019-08-21 13:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Papilio machaon gorganus (Old World swallowtail) underside
Reason:
existing VI is same subspecies -- Charles (talk)
Open for review.
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.