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
34,929 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
31,156 (89.2%) 
Undecided
  
1,732 (5%) 
Declined
  
2,041 (5.8%) 



New valued image nominationsEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2019-05-22 06:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Tenguella granulata (Mulberry Snail), shell
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 07:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Uoaei1 (talk) on 2019-05-22 13:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Pfarrkirche hl. Augustinus, Perchtoldsdorf – Türkenfenster

  Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 04:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Uoaei1 (talk) on 2019-05-22 13:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Interior of Saint John the Evangelist Chapel (Pürgg) viewing eastwards
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2019-05-22 13:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Engine of Wartburg 1000
Used in:
de: Hans Müller (Ingenieur), el: Wartburg 311
Reason:
Problably we have no other image of this engine in a Wartburg 1000 or Wartburg 311. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ezarateesteban on 2019-05-22 14:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Logo of Racing de Trelew

  Oppose Proportional error: the image is too stretched in height it Racing de Trelew.png is better. Easy to fix... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

@Archaeodontosaurus: see now, thanks!!! Ezarateesteban 15:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2019-05-22 19:15 (UTC)
Scope:
2 Mark "Notgeld" banknote of Berlin (1922), reverse showing the elevated railway across the Landwehr Canal.
Used in:
Money of Germany
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Ezarateesteban on 2019-05-22 21:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Logo of Union del Suburbio de Gualeguaychú

  Comment the linked category, doesn't really fit the scope. --MB-one (talk) 07:00, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

it's a logo, there is all logos there. What category do you propose? Ezarateesteban 15:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2019-05-23 04:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Antisabia foliacea (White Hoof Snail), shell
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-05-23 04:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Eumorpha vitis (vine sphinx) mounted specimen female dorsal

  Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 04:33, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-05-23 05:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Chiesa di Santa Maria Formosa - Venezia, bell tower
  •   Support Good and useful image. Best in scope. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-05-23 05:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Duomo (Padua) - right arm of transept Adorazione dei Magi ( Adoration of the Magi ) by Francesco Zanella
  •   Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 04:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
MB-one (talk) on 2019-05-23 06:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Third Generation Buick Century station wagon - front view
Used in:
en:Buick Century
  •   Support Useful and used, taken at a good angle. --WQL (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose Light is bad. Better images of this car are available. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Yann: can you link a better image for comparison? --MB-one (talk) 20:44, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  Comment The angle may be good, but otherwise I find nothing valuable in the picture. Especially the shadow disturbs a lot. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 10:57, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
WQL (talk) on 2019-05-24 03:40 (UTC)
Scope:
2018 Shanghai knife attack
Used in:
zh:2018年上海市世界外国语小学砍人事件
Reason:
It depicts an historic or rare event, that neighborhoods and parents gathered at Shanghai World Foreign Language Primary School West Guilin Street campus to mourn victims in 2018 Shanghai knife attack, which has a high historic value and encyclopediac value. -- WQL (talk)
  •   Comment - WQL, thanks for the nomination, but you can't support your own nomination on Valued image candidates, only on Featured picture candidates. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Also, your scope is malformed. Is there a Commons category you can link to? We can't consider whether this photo is best in its scope if we have no way of knowing where to find other photos in its scope. Look at any other nomination on this page in edit mode to see how scopes are created on VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
    • @Ikan Kekek: Sorry I had mistaken the idea on COM:VISC, and I corrected it just now. Best regards, WQL (talk) 06:38, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The format still isn't quite right. Look a little more at the way it's done in other nominations. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - It's a useful image, and you now have the right format for a VI scope. It doesn't actually show the attack, though, so I'm thinking maybe the scope should be "mourning for victims of 2018 Shanghai knife attack". User:Archaeodontosaurus, what do you think about the scope? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
    •   Comment This is an unusual situation, but the image seems very important to me. It is very emblematic of the resent of the population, the proposal of Ikan Kekek is right, without it being necessary to change the name of the category.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Right. I think it's an important image, too. My suggestion is for the scope to look like this: [[:Category:2018 Shanghai knife attack|Mourning for victims of 2018 Shanghai knife attack]] (without the nowiki). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2019-05-24 04:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Vittina semiconica (Red Onion Nerite Snail), shell, form with dots
  •   Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Useful and used. --WQL (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
BoothSift on 2019-05-24 04:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Closeup of mouth of Aonyx cinerea (Oriental small-clawed otter)
  •   Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:25, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Question Archaeodontosaurus BoothSift I can't find the geocoding. Charles (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It's a captive that's the only certainty we have. In the absolute it would be a geocoding but here the subject is a point of anatomy that is not related to the place. For me it is not a problem. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-05-24 05:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Eumorpha vitis ( vine sphinx), mounted specimen female ventral
  •   Support Useful and used--BoothSift 06:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Useful and used. --WQL (talk) 06:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-05-24 05:07 (UTC)
Scope:
PChoir organ in the right arm of the transept

  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-05-24 05:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Le miracle de Bolsena (The miracle of Bolsena) by Jacques Gamelin, Musée des Beaux-Arts de Carcassonne

  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
BoothSift on 2019-05-24 06:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Apteryx haastii (Great spotted kiwi) Illustration of a female
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2019-05-24 07:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Showroom with vehicles of the 1950s in the former Automuseum Busch
Used in:
de: Automobilmuseum von Fritz B. Busch
Reason:
The photo is taken 19 years ago and it is not possible to repeat it. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2019-05-24 08:03 (UTC)
Scope:
All Saints church, Childwall - views from the south
Used in:
See global usage
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2019-05-24 09:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Forwood monument, St John's Gardens - full length views
Used in:
en:Arthur Forwood
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2019-05-24 10:31 (UTC)
Scope:
DKW RT350 (left side) in the Audi Forum
Used in:
de: DKW RT 350
Reason:
The DKW RT 350 was a rare bike. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk)

  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2019-05-24 10:43 (UTC)
Scope:
DKW RT350 with side car from Binder in the Audi Forum
Used in:
de: DKW RT 350, de: Motorrad, de: Motorradgespann, hr: Bočna prikolica
Reason:
Not only the DKW RT 350 is rare but especialy the side car made by Binder. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk)

  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m on 2019-05-25 03:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Ovis aries (sheep) skeleton
Used in:
Q7368, Ovis aries
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m on 2019-05-25 04:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Cervus unicolor skeleton
Used in:
Q229337
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2019-05-25 05:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Vittina semiconica (Red Onion Nerite Snail), shell, form with angled lines
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-05-25 05:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Callionima parce (parce sphinx moth) mounted specimen female dorsal
  •   Support useful. Charles (talk) 10:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-05-25 05:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Aerial view of the University Hospital of Toulouse Rangueil
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-05-25 05:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Vue de la Seine, l'embarcadère ( View of the Seine, the pier ) by Albert Marquet, Fondation Bemberg, Toulouse
  •   Support - Useful image of a wonderful painting. Marquet was one of my father's favorites. Whenever fashions change and he gets more appreciation again, there will be VIs on Commons for people to consult, thanks to your work. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Yann (talk) on 2019-05-25 13:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait de l'artiste (self-portrait), by Paul Cézanne, Phillips Collection
Reason:
Good quality image from a reliable source, geolocated to the institution. -- Yann (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Yann (talk) on 2019-05-25 13:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Maison et ferme du Jas de Bouffan, by Paul Cézanne, National Gallery in Prague
Reason:
High resolution from the museum, geolocated to the institution. -- Yann (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Yann (talk) on 2019-05-25 14:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Maison devant la Sainte-Victoire près de Gardanne (House in Provence), by Paul Cézanne, Indianapolis Museum of Art
Reason:
High resolution from the museum, geolocated to the institution. -- Yann (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2019-05-25 17:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Typha latifolia seed Seed Fluff.
  •   Done. Small correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2019-05-25 17:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Horch 10-12 PS in the Audi Forum Ingolstadt, sideview
Used in:
de: Hoch 10–12 PS
Reason:
Up to now this image should be the best in scope. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2019-05-25 18:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Driver’s seat of a Horch 10-12 PS in the Audi Forum Ingolstadt
Used in:
it: Hoch 10–12 PS
Reason:
Up to now this image should be the best in scope. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
BoothSift on 2019-05-25 18:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Engina alveolata, shell, juvenile
  •   Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
    •   Info As it is not a fully grown shell, I changed the scope to "juvenile" --Llez (talk) 05:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
BoothSift on 2019-05-25 18:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Prodotia iostoma, shell
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
BoothSift on 2019-05-25 18:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Carcharodus alceae (Mallow skipper) mounted specimen female ventral

+  Support Very good and useful -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 19:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
BoothSift on 2019-05-25 18:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Bena bicolorana (Scarce silver-lines), mounted specimen male dorsal
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
BoothSift on 2019-05-25 18:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Bena bicolorana(Scarce silver-lines), mounted specimen male ventral
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2019-05-25 19:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Horch 855 Special-Roadster, front, in Audi Forum, Ingolstadt
Reason:
The Horch Special-Roadster with body made by Gläser was a very rare car. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2019-05-25 20:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Horch 855 Special-Roadster, front and left side, in Audi Forum, Ingolstadt
Used in:
it: Hoch 10–12 PS
Reason:
The Horch Special-Roadster with body made by Gläser was a very rare car, only seven were built. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2019-05-25 20:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Horch 855 Special-Roadster, interior, in Audi Forum, Ingolstadt
Used in:
it: Hoch 10–12 PS
Reason:
The Horch Special-Roadster with body made by Gläser was a very rare car. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
BoothSift on 2019-05-25 21:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Endromis versicolora (Kentish glory) mounted specimen, male dorsal

  Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-05-26 04:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Callionima parce (parce sphinx moth) mounted specimen, female, ventral
  •   Support Useful and used--BoothSift 04:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-05-26 04:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Fountain and the coat of arms of the Rezzonico family, Museo del Settecento Veneziano, Ca' Rezzonico, Venice - Courtyard
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-05-26 04:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Duomo (Padua) - right arm of transept L'Incoronazione della Vergine ( The Coronation of the Virgin ) by Gregorio Lazzarini
  •   Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 04:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
BoothSift on 2019-05-26 04:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Marginella irrorata, shell
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
BoothSift on 2019-05-26 05:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Marginella lutea, shell
Open for review.


Pending Most valued review candidatesEdit

Wayside cross in EdingenEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2017-02-15 21:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Wayside cross (17th century) in Edingen (Ralingen), Germany.

  Support good for scope --Berthold Werner (talk) 06:26, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2019-05-23 17:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Wayside cross (17th century) in Edingen (Ralingen), Germany.
Used in:
de:Liste der Kulturdenkmäler in Ralingen
Open for review.

Ypthima naredaEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 8 April 2019
Scope:
Ypthima nareda, (Large Three-ring), ventral
@Charlesjsharp:, @Atudu: I have opened a Most Valued Image Candidate as I am nominating the other image while this one is open as well. --BoothSift 17:41, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support - I'm no expert, but I have no reason not to figure this is an accurate representation. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I prefer this version --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
BoothSift on 2019-04-09 17:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Ypthima nareda, (Large Three-ring), ventral
  •   Oppose - Looks overexposed and partly blown, so presumably too white. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Probably, but shows eyespots better. Charles (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose per Ikan Kekek --Uoaei1 (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Central Lodge, Birkenhead ParkEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2019-05-02 20:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Central Lodge, Birkenhead Park
Reason:
Please demote in favour of the other image. I wasn't expecting to get back there so soon, but the newer version has no car obscuring the view. -- Rodhullandemu (talk)
  •   Support - True. Best in scope, therefore. I take it, there's no way to get the complete building in one shot, because of vegetation in the way? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
It's a small plot anyway, and you are right about the trees, etc. Apart from the car, this is probably the best view achievable without a drone. Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Now oppose in favor of the other nominee. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Oppose In favor of the other nominee--BoothSift 06:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2019-05-12 16:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Central Lodge, Birkenhead Park
Used in:
en:Listed buildings in Birkenhead Park
Reason:
Better view -- Rodhullandemu (talk)
  •   Support - Yes, slightly better, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support I agree. Yann (talk) 03:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  •   Support Better--BoothSift 06:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 07:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
To initiate a most valued review, please go to the dedicated MVR sub page.
Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache

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

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

Pending valued image set candidatesEdit

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