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
27,621 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
24,395 (88.3%) 
Undecided
  
1,406 (5.1%) 
Declined
  
1,820 (6.6%) 



New valued image nominationsEdit

   
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
C.Suthorn (talk) on 2017-09-18 05:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Protest against Demo für Alle in Berlin
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
C.Suthorn (talk) on 2017-09-18 05:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Slogans by Demo für Alle in Berlin
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
C.Suthorn (talk) on 2017-09-18 05:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Campaign Bus of Demo für Alle in Berlin in front of the Chancellery
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Uoaei1 (talk) on 2017-09-18 13:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Pfarrkirche Maria Gail - winged altar
Used in:
de:Wallfahrtskirche Maria Gail
  •   Support Obviously best in scope, useful and used -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Uoaei1 (talk) on 2017-09-18 12:54 (UTC)
Scope:
High altar in St. Wolfgang in Grades
Used in:
de:Wallfahrtskirche St. Wolfgang ob Grades

Good work, VI --Berthold Werner (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Uoaei1 (talk) on 2017-09-18 13:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Pfarrkirche hl. Cyriak (Pfarrwerfen) - main altar

  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Uoaei1 (talk) on 2017-09-18 13:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Stadtpfarrkirche Freistadt - Nothelferaltar
Used in:
de:Stadtpfarrkirche Freistadt
  •   Support Good image, useful and used -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 18:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Berthold Werner (talk) on 2017-09-18 13:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Feilzustersklooster (Maastricht), view from south
Reason:
 

This is an image of rijksmonument number 26964

-- Berthold Werner (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
C.Suthorn (talk) on 2017-09-18 16:17 (UTC)
Scope:
T.W.U.

  Comment Seen from the distance with a tele lense, without perspective distortion. --C.Suthorn (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  •   Question Help me to understand something; there are other pictures of this subject also taken by you such as this, and this. Why is the one you nominated best in scope? Sixflashphoto (talk) 18:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    • perspctive distortion was critized in a previous Serra sculpture picture. But I can also nominate another file. --C.Suthorn (talk) 11:45, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    Can someone tell me why? I don't think I see that but a lot of construction stuff maybe. And do you think this best represents the scope?Sixflashphoto (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Spurzem (talk) on 2017-09-18 18:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Chaparral 2D driven by Joakim Bonnier at practice on Nürburgring in 1966
Used in:
de:Joakim Bonnier, de: 1000-km-Rennen auf dem Nürburgring, de: Chaparral cars, en: Jo Bonnier, en: Chaparral cars, fr: Joakim Bonnier, fr: Chaparral cars, it: Chaparral cars, ja: シャパラル・カーズ,
Reason:
Probably one of my most liked images of racing -- Spurzem (talk)

  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
kaʁstn Dis/Cat on 2017-09-18 18:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Former ABC Building, Kamp-Lintfort (southeast view)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
kaʁstn Dis/Cat on 2017-09-18 18:34 (UTC)
Scope:
House Friedrichstraße 2, Kamp-Lintfort (north view)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
kaʁstn Dis/Cat on 2017-09-18 18:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Kiosk in Alt-Siedlung Friedrich-Heinrich, Kamp-Lintfort (west view)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2017-09-18 20:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Botryphallus tuber, shell
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Talk to Kong of Lasers on 2017-09-18 01:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Encelia californica (California brittlebush) flower
Used in:
[[1]], [[2]]--Talk to Kong of Lasers 22:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Archaeodontosaurus: Please review the scope. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 23:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Talk to Kong of Lasers on 2017-09-18 22:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Dolichotis patagonum in San Diego Zoo.

  Comment The animal is blurred and especially giving the name of the zoo has no interest for the scope.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Talk to Kong of Lasers on 2017-09-18 23:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Anolis carolinensis (Carolina anole) back and tail

@Archaeodontosaurus: Can you review? Don't want any mistakes. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 23:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  •   Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - I agree - this is the most useful photo of this lizard's back and tail. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-09-19 05:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Ambulyx maculifera Mounted specimen male dorsal

  Support Useful and best in scope --Llez (talk) 09:54, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-09-19 05:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Palazzo del Capitanio (Vicenza) Facade on Piazza dei Signori

  Support Best in scope --Llez (talk) 09:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-09-19 05:06 (UTC)
Scope:
The Tempest by Giorgione Gallerie dell'Accademia in Venice

  Support Best in scope

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
শাহাদাত সায়েম (talk) on 2017-09-19 10:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Rani Vabani Rajbari
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Мирослав Видрак (talk) on 2017-09-19 16:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Windows in Kiev, Ukraine.
  •   Oppose in this scope, which is way too broad. How can one window represent that entire scope? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Spurzem (talk) on 2017-09-19 17:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Crowd at the start of the 6 Hours of Nürburgring 1973
Reason:
The 1973 Six Hours of Nürburgring was one of the last races in the career of the the thrice repeated formula one world champion Jackie Stewart -- Spurzem (talk)
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Spurzem (talk) on 2017-09-19 17:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Jackie Stewart at practice of 6 Hours of Nürburgring 1973 with Ford Capri in section Hohe Acht
Used in:
de:Jackie Stewart, de:Ford Capri
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
SuperJew (talk) on 2017-09-19 17:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Sculptures of sportsmanship
Used in:

  Comment You had no good lighting. Was it not possible to take an image of this sculpture an another day? -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)   Comment Scope must link to one category. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 23:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Spurzem (talk) on 2017-09-19 20:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Chris Amon with BMW 3.5 CSL at 6 Hours of Nürburgring 1973
Used in:
de: BMW E9, de: Chris Amon, de: BMW (Motorsport), en: BMW E9, en: Chris Amon, en: BMW in motorsport, fr: BMW E9, fr: Chris Amon
Reason:
The team Chris Amon and Hans Joachim Stuck was the winner of this race. -- Spurzem (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2017-09-19 21:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Wayside cross (15th-16th ctry.) in Idesheim, Germany.
Used in:
de:Liste der Kulturdenkmäler in Idesheim
  •   Support Good image, useful and used. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-09-20 05:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Ambulyx maculifera Mounted specimen male ventral

  Support Nice. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 04:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-09-20 05:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Opening of the Rio di San Marcuola on the Grand Canal in Venice
  •   Support Good lighting. Therefore the best for me in scope. Useful and used. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-09-20 05:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Cathedral (Vicenza) - Interior - the organ
  •   Support Good image, obviously the only one of organ in scope; useful and used. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 09:23, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
C.Suthorn (talk) on 2017-09-20 11:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Moving Forward
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Berthold Werner (talk) on 2017-09-20 13:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Helpoort (Maastricht), view from WSW
Reason:
 

This is an image of rijksmonument number 27997

-- Berthold Werner (talk)

  Support A large scope, but this is the best IMO. --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Milan Bališin (talk) on 2017-09-20 17:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Inversion on Šimonka

  Comment it is recommended to have a caption in English --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Мирослав Видрак (talk) on 2017-09-20 19:48 (UTC)
Scope:
33/34 Bohdana Khmelnytskoho Street, Kiev, Ukraine.

  Comment it is recommended to have a caption in English --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2017-09-20 20:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Alvania watsoni, shell
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
MB-one (talk) on 2017-09-20 20:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Volkswagen I.D. Buzz
Used in:
en:Volkswagen I.D. Buzz, fr:Volkswagen I.D. Buzz, wikidata:Q30765198, de:Konzeptfahrzeuge von VW
  •   Comment There are special recommendations for the scopes of cars, for the orentions of the shots. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment You're right, I thought we'd added them. Ask our expert for cars We will ask the question to our expert for cars  : @DeFacto:. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archaeodontosaurus (talk • contribs) 08:07, 21 September 2017‎ (UTC)
    •   Comment, I'm no car expert, but I do have an interest in some of them. ;) We did discuss car scopes some time back here, but never reached a formal consensus. However, we do seem to have a working agreement that each visually distinctive car make/model/generation can generally have two scopes - one for a front 3/4 view (front) and one for a rear 3/4 view (rear). So this image could have scope: Volkswagen ID Buzz - front. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:45, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • They had it on English Wiki, querter shot was one of them, like this, not bad pic. But i dont remember for other requests. --Mile (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC) p.S. Some crop from left might enfocus it better
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Guanaco (talk) on 2017-09-20 20:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Copyfraud
Used in:
en:Copyfraud
  •   Comment Must connect the scope to the category that contains the image --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
      Done. Thank you, it's my first time nominating here. Guanaco (talk) 12:18, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Polemic subject, but very well illustrated by this image.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-09-21 05:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Pachygonidia subhamata Mounted specimen female ventral
  •   Support - Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-09-21 05:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Santa Maria della Salute (Venice) - Luca Giordano - Assumption of Mary by Luca Giordano

  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-09-21 05:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Monument to Andrea Palladio (Vicenza)

  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Mile (talk) on 2017-09-21 13:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Fresco of Seven Saints in Saint Naum Monastery
Used in:
Седмочисленици and other articles since i replaced previous picture, due to quality, size
Reason:
Very good shot for hard conditions, full size, and rare fresco also (3-4 shots on Wikimedia) -- Mile (talk)

  Support Very good --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
A,Ocram (talk) on 2017-09-21 14:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Heteroconger luteolus, Yellow garden eel
@A,Ocram: It has to be the best because it's the only one in the scope. Hashtag cheating. --Talk to Kong of Lasers 23:08, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-09-22 05:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Cechenena pollux Mounted specimen male dorsal
  •   Support Useful, Used, and Best in scope. Sixflashphoto (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-09-22 05:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Church San Lorenzo in Vicenza - Facade Sarcophagus of Perdono Repeta
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-09-22 05:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Teatro Olimpico (Vicenza) - courtyard and Coxina Tower
  •   Support Useful, Used, and Best in scope. Sixflashphoto (talk) 08:43, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2017-09-22 05:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Confluence of the Big and Little Darby Creeks.
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2017-09-22 06:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Big Darby Creek right before the merging of Big and Little Darby Creeks
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2017-09-22 06:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Historical Marker for Big and Little Darby Creeks.
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Uoaei1 (talk) on 2017-09-22 08:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Filialkirche hl. Jakob der Ältere, Lendorf bei Klagenfurt (exterior)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2017-09-22 10:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Church "St. Johannes der Täufer" ain Gilzem, Gilzem, Germany (view southeast).
Used in:
de:Liste der Kulturdenkmäler in Gilzem
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.

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