Open main menu

Commons:Valued image candidates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Skip to current candidates Valued Image links:

How to nominate an image for VI statusEdit

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

Adding a new nomination (image)Edit

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


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

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

|My-image-filename.jpg

so that it looks like this:

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

and save the candidate list.


RenominationEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

|nominator=~~~

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

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

Step 6: Add the candidate to the candidates list.

How to open a Most Valued ReviewEdit

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

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

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

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

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

How to review the candidatesEdit

How to review an imageEdit

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

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

Review procedureEdit

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


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


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

Changes in scope during the review periodEdit

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

Contents

You can submit new nominations starting on COM:VIC.

Pending valued image candidatesEdit

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache
33,392 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
29,703 (89%) 
Undecided
  
1,681 (5%) 
Declined
  
2,008 (6%) 



New valued image nominationsEdit

   
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-12-14 06:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Daphnis nerii mounted specimen male dorsal
  •   Support useful. Charles (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:14, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 14 December 2018
Scope:
Jamides pura, (White Cerulean), ventral
  •   Comment Would be more valuable if added to Wikipedia article. Charles (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment - You're putting the cart before the horse. If it's more valuable, we should make it a VI, thereby encouraging people to use the image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Only picture of this butterfly alive on Commons, apparently, and therefore, obviously useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 14 December 2018
Scope:
Halpe zema, (Zema Banded Ace), ventral
  •   Comment Would be more valuable if added to Wikipedia article. Charles (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support - Best in scope by far, which, except for the obvious usefulness, is basically the only thing we're supposed to judge here. We debated a requirement for nominees to already be in Wikipedia articles and voted it down. Please stop trying to fight a rear-guard battle on that. Add it to a Wikipedia article if you feel inspired to do so. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support Charles is right to suggest placing the image. But we agree that it is not a rule. Personally I vote very exceptionally for an image that is not used. In this case it is used. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 03:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 14 December 2018
Scope:
Thaumantis diores, (Jungle glory), ventral

  Comment Would be more valuable if added to Wikipedia article. Charles (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  •   Support - Best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:27, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-12-14 09:45 (UTC)
Scope:
2 Islington Square, Liverpool
Used in:
en:Grade II listed buildings in Liverpool-L3, Wikidata:Q26568810
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-12-14 09:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Liverpool Dock exit, Queensway Tunnel
Used in:
en:Grade II listed buildings in Liverpool-L3
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Armenak Margarian (talk) on 2018-12-14 10:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Statue of Pushkin in Gyumri, Armenia
  •   Comment I suggest to include the category of the statue instead of the person in the scope. --MB-one (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  Done Thank you.--Armenak Margarian (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  •   Support - Best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 03:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
MB-one (talk) on 2018-12-14 12:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Porsche 991 GT2 RS - front
Used in:
de:Porsche 911 GT2, zh:保时捷911 GT2
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-12-14 18:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Dictyophorus spumans spumans (Koppie foam grasshopper) nymph
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 03:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-12-14 18:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Dictyophorus spumans spumans (Koppie foam grasshopper) lateral view
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 03:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-12-14 18:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Dictyophorus spumans spumans (Koppie foam grasshopper) dorsal view
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 03:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
-- DeFacto (talk). on 2018-12-14 20:54 (UTC)
Scope:
FAB 1 Thunderbirds car from 2004 film - front
Used in:
en:Thunderbirds (2004 film)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 03:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
-- DeFacto (talk). on 2018-12-14 20:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Land Rover series IIa 'Pink Panther' 1968 SAS desert car in the British Motor Museum
Used in:
en:Land Rover series
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 03:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-12-15 06:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Zerynthia polyxena mounted specimen male ventral
  •   Support useful. Charles (talk) 09:54, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-12-15 05:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Hôtel Bernet, in Toulouse, the porch

  Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-12-15 06:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Le Pont des Saints-Pères by Pierre Bonnard, Fondation Bemberg Toulouse
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2018-12-15 06:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Podiceps nigricollis (black-necked grebe) eggs
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2018-12-15 06:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Chiesa dei Santi Filippo e Giacomo (Cogolo) Church tower.

  Oppose - For just the bell tower, I consider File:Kerk van St. Philip en St. James. Locatie, Cogolo in de autonome provincie Trento (Italië) 03.jpg most useful, because it has the entire tower plus the smallest amount of extraneous space. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
*Answer; Thank you for your comments. We had chosen this photo, because the photo is used on an Italian website Category:Chiesa dei Santi Filippo e Giacomo (Cogolo) In the right upper corner.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

  • OK, but I don't have to agree with their choice. It seems to me, the point to VIC should be to recommend the most useful photo, not to ratify someone else's choice just because someone made that choice. I hope that doesn't sound rude. This isn't about which photos are good. Both of you take loads of beautiful photos, as shown by the number of QIs and FPs both of you have been awarded. This is about which photo is most useful in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
    :*  I withdraw my nomination Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-12-15 09:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Ploceus velatus (Southern masked weaver) male building nest
Reason:
  •   Comment Very good but I think it would be better to place the image in the special category nest. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Done Yes, better category Charles (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2018 (UTC) -- Charles (talk)
  •   Support Perfect now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Charles (talk) on 2018-12-15 09:48 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Pseudagrion salisburyense (Slate sprites) mating
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Charles (talk) on 2018-12-15 09:52 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Lanius collaris subcoronatus (Common fiscal)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    MB-one (talk) on 2018-12-15 16:58 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Peugeot 205 GTI 1.6 - front
    Used in:
    Global usage
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Palauenc05 (talk) on 2018-12-15 17:30 (UTC)
    Scope:
    25 Pfennig "Notgeld" banknote (1921) of Ehrenbreitstein (Germany), RV: C. Brentano.
    Used in:
    Money of Germany
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Palauenc05 (talk) on 2018-12-15 17:37 (UTC)
    Scope:
    50 Pfennig "Notgeld" banknote of Malente (Germany) (1920).
    Used in:
    Money of Germany
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Llez (talk) on 2018-12-15 20:38 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Cancellaria reticulata (Common Nutmeg), shell
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-12-16 01:44 (UTC)
    Scope:
    22 Argyle Street, Birkenhead
    Used in:
    en:Listed buildings in Birkenhead
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-12-16 05:48 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Theretra indistincta female ventral
    •   Support useful. Charles (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-12-16 05:50 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Cour Henri IV in Capitole de Toulouse - Henri IV by Thomas Hurtamat
    •   Support Best in scope --Ercé (talk) 07:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-12-16 05:51 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Memento mori (Vanity with a skull) by Johann Elias Ridinger, Musée des arts décoratifs, Paris
    •   Support - Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Ercé (talk) on 2018-12-16 07:20 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Podiceps grisegena eggs (red-necked grebe)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Christian Ferrer (talk) on 2018-12-16 07:52 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Nord Stingray (ship, 2009)
    Reason:
    Alone in scope, used -- Christian Ferrer (talk)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Charles (talk) on 2018-12-16 15:06 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Peucetia madagascariensis (Malagasy green lynx spider) male
    •   Support - Best in scope for the complete spider. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Charles (talk) on 2018-12-16 15:07 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Peucetia madagascariensis (Malagasy green lynx spider) female
    •   Support - Best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Charles (talk) on 2018-12-16 11:35 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Peucetia madagascariensis (Malagasy green lynx spider) and green bottle fly (Lucilia sp.)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-12-16 15:55 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Glass Barrel, Birkenhead
    Used in:
    en:Listed buildings in Birkenhead
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-12-16 21:29 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Cunard War Memorial
    Used in:
    en:Grade II listed buildings in Liverpool-L3
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-12-17 06:08 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Daphnis nerii mounted specimen male ventral
    •   Support useful. Charles (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-12-17 06:09 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Allégorie de la Sculpture (Allegory of Sculpture) by Léo Laporte-Blairsy, École supérieure des beaux-arts de Toulouse.
    •   Support Useful & used.--Famberhorst (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-12-17 06:15 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Conversation à Arcachon by Pierre Bonnard, Musée des Beaux-Arts de la Ville de Paris
    •   Support - This is the only photo of this artwork that I see in the category, and it's certainly useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Tournasol7 (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC) on 2018-12-17 16:17 (UTC)
    Scope:
    View of Rue du Cerf from Rue Latérale in Riquewihr

      Support Useful --Llez (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Tournasol7 (talk) on 2018-12-17 16:21 (UTC)
    Scope:
    View of Rue de Dinzheim from Rue de la Couronne in Riquewihr
    •   Support - Seems like it could be useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Llez (talk) on 2018-12-17 18:34 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Sveltia lyrata (Lyrate Nutmeg), shell

    Useful & used.--Famberhorst (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Famberhorst (talk) on 2018-12-17 19:06 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Katholische Pfarrkirche St. Sebastian-S. Bistgaun, Dardin Church building.
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Adam Cuerden (talk) on 2018-12-17 21:40 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Jeannette Rankin
    Reason:
    Rankin was the first ever United States Congresswoman, about four years before women had the right to vote in most states. - And, indeed, she was one of the people responsible for getting them that right. I think this is a good chance to evaluate the different images. I'm happy to restore additional files, I just want her to have the best image possible. -- Adam Cuerden (talk)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Ezarateesteban on 2018-12-17 22:44 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Gustavo Briner
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-12-18 06:02 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Daphnis hypothous mounted specimen female dorsal
    •   Support - Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-12-18 06:03 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Salle des Illustres (Toulouse) from the north wall
    •   Support Best in scope --Ercé (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-12-18 06:05 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Portrait de Louise de Savoie - by Jean Clouet, Fondation Bemberg, Toulouse
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2018-12-18 07:54 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Katholische Pfarrkirche St. Sebastian-S. Bistgaun, Dardin Banner.
    •   Support - Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Palauenc05 (talk) on 2018-12-18 09:49 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Paul Trappen lifting two oxen (1913).
    Used in:
    de:Paul Trappen, wikidata:Q2062805
    •   Support - Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-12-18 10:49 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Birkenhead Town Hall - frontage
    Used in:
    See global usage
    •   Support - Best in scope, but since it shows only the front, you might change the scope to "town hall, front". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
        Done, thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 11:40, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Palauenc05 (talk) on 2018-12-18 11:20 (UTC)
    Scope:
    25 Pfg. "Notgeld" banknote of Mainz (1921), RV: Roman helmet.
    Used in:
    Money of Germany
    •   Support - Useful, and another really good one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Charles (talk) on 2018-12-17 10:40 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Acrantophis dumerili (Dumeril's Madagascar ground boa) male
    Open for review.
     
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Charles (talk) on 2018-12-17 10:43 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Acrantophis dumerili (Dumeril's Madagascar ground boa) male head
    Reason:
    < Note: My reference source for Madagascar (apart from local guides) is A Field Guide to the Amphibians and Reptiles of Madagascar by Frank Glaw and Miguel Vences (Third Edition) and AmphibiaWeb. Charles (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC) -- Charles (talk)
    Open for review.
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Charles (talk) on 2018-12-17 10:45 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Aphistogoniulus corallipes (Giant fire millipede)
    •   Support Best in scope --Ercé (talk) 14:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
    Open for review.
     
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Ercé (talk) on 2018-12-18 14:29 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Podiceps auritus (horned grebe) eggs
    Open for review.
     
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Ezarateesteban on 2018-12-19 00:47 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Category:Gaspar Garrone
    Open for review.


    Pending Most valued review candidatesEdit

       
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Charles (talk) on 2015-12-11 11:22 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Acraea horta (Garden acraea) male, dorsal

      Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

    Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
    promoted. --Medium69 You wanted talk to me? 12:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
    Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 03:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
     
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Charles (talk) on 2018-12-14 18:32 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Acraea horta (Garden acraea) male dorsal
    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.