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
20,972 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
18,216 (86.9%) 
Undecided
  
1,154 (5.5%) 
Declined
  
1,602 (7.6%) 


New valued image nominationsEdit

   
2016 Wrocław, Rynek 44 02.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2016-04-27 22:21 (UTC)
Scope:
44 Market Square in Wrocław, gable

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I can see no justification for having a VI of a part of a building shown perfectly adequately in another submission. Charles (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - As per Charles. Martinvl (talk) 07:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@Charlesjsharp:, @Martinvl: Quote of the rules: "Additional scopes can exceptionally be proposed if some part of the building is particularly worth of interest". --Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jacek Halicki:: An exceptional proposal requires a good justification. To date, no justiciation, good or bad, has been made why an exception should be made.Martinvl (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.
2016 Wrocław, Rynek 44 04.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2016-04-27 22:29 (UTC)
Scope:
44 Market Square in Wrocław, deer sculpture

Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 06:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I can see no justification for having a VI of a part of a building shown perfectly adequately in another submission, unless it is of particular importance, but there is no mention of its creator etc. Charles (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - As per Charles. Martinvl (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@Charlesjsharp:, @Martinvl: Quote of the rules: "Additional scopes can exceptionally be proposed if some part of the building is particularly worth of interest". --Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think in this case it is worth an own scope --Llez (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment it would be useful that this image is used. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:10, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Jacek Halicki:: An exceptional proposal requires a good justification. To date, no justiciation, good or bad, has been made why an exception should be made. Who is the sculptor of this deer? When was it made? Why is it notable? Remember, this is a Valued Image submission, not a Quality Image submission. Martinvl (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.
2014 Cenzura.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2016-04-28 10:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Censorship in art, allegory of communist press censorship

Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question No votes, comments or annotation? --Jacek Halicki (*talk) 08:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral It isn't the unique artwork on the scope about censorship Ezarateesteban 22:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
In this scope as there are no other images, is only one allegory of censorship. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 08:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Declined if the last vote was added no later than 18:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
2016 Wrocław, Rynek-Ratusz 7 02.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2016-04-28 11:01 (UTC)
Scope:
7 Market Square Town Hall in Wrocław, windows and stuccos

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I can see no justification for having a VI of a part of a building shown perfectly adequately in another submission. Charles (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp:, @Martinvl: Quote of the rules: "Additional scopes can exceptionally be proposed if some part of the building is particularly worth of interest". --Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:23, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@Jacek Halicki:: An exceptional proposal requires a good justification. To date, no justiciation, good or bad, has been made why an exception should be made. Martinvl (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.
2016 Wrocław, Rynek 40.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2016-04-28 11:07 (UTC)
Scope:
39-40 Market Square in Wrocław, gable
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 20:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose You should propose a scope of the whole façade, not just the gable. Charles (talk) 08:14, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
@Charlesjsharp: Quote of the rules: "Additional scopes can exceptionally be proposed if some part of the building is particularly worth of interest". --Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jacek Halicki: I love these images of the intricate ornamentation on the buildings in Wroclaw, and the history they represent. As these building are listed as monuments in Poland, I wonder if there are any references you can cite that describe these special features to help establish why they are more than just of local interest. That might convince other editors that they represent a worthy valid image scope. DeFacto (talk). 21:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
✓ Done --Jacek Halicki (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.
Cechenena lineosa MHNT CUT 2010 0 22 Ban Kheun Oudomxay Province Laos female ventral.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-04-30 06:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Cechenena lineosa mounted specimen female ventral

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Llez (talk) 06:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Coupe à huile Fidji Savès MHNT ETH ETH AC FI 50.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-04-30 06:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Art of Fiji, oil cup tripod

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Llez (talk) 06:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Cathédrale Saint-Étienne de Toulouse – Le triomphe de Joseph Hilaire-Pader.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-04-30 06:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Cathédrale Saint-Étienne from Toulouse, ""The triumph of Joseph " by Hilaire Pader

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Llez (talk) 06:32, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Jonge twijg aan gesnoeide druivenrank Vitis vinifera 'Boskoop Glory'. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei 02.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2016-04-30 17:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Vitis vinifera 'Boskoop Glory' Young twig of pruned grape vine.
Open for review.
Palazzo Corner Spinelli Canal Grande Venezia sole.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Wolfgang Moroder (talk) on 2016-04-30 18:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Palazzo Corner Spinelli (Venice), facade on Canal Grande

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.
Palazzo Garzoni Rio di Ca'Garzoni Canal Grande Venezia.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Wolfgang Moroder (talk) on 2016-04-30 19:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Palazzo Garzoni (Venice), facade on Canal Grande

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Palace name missing from scope. Charles (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.
Geometrid moth (Hypochrosis binexata).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2016-04-30 20:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Hypochrosis binexata (Geometrid moth) dorsal

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.
Oval St Andrew's Cross spider (Argiope aemula) male and female.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2016-04-30 20:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Argiope aemula (Oval St Andrew's Cross spider) male (ventral) and female (dorsal)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.
Oliva dufresnei 01.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2016-04-30 21:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Oliva dufresnei, Shell

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:39, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.
Cechenena helops papuana MHNT CUT 2010 0 22 Wau New Guinea male ventral.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-05-01 05:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Cechenena helops papuana mounted speciemen, male, ventral

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:06, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.
Hôtel des chevaliers de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem in Toulouse Porche.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-05-01 05:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Hôtel des chevaliers de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem, Toulouse, porch.
Open for review.
Santa Anastasia (Verona) - Cappella Giusti.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-05-01 05:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Basilica Santa Anastasia of Verona - the chapel Giusti

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 11:09, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.
Rhapsody (ship, 1996), Sète cf01.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Christian Ferrer (talk) on 2016-05-01 06:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Rhapsody (ship, 1996). General view

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.
Emerald damselflies (Lestes sponsa) mating.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2016-05-01 11:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Lestes sponsa (Emerald damselflies) mating

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.
Three-horned rhinoceros beetle (Chalcosoma moellenkampi) male.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2016-05-01 11:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Chalcosoma moellenkampi (Three-horned rhinoceros beetle) male

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.
Three-horned rhinoceros beetle (Chalcosoma moellenkampi) female.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2016-05-01 11:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Chalcosoma moellenkampi (Three-horned rhinoceros beetle) female

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.
Gruta de Lourdes , San Pedro de Colalao.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ezarateesteban on 2016-05-02 00:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Lourdes Grottoes in San Pedro de Colalao

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.
Acosmeryx shervillii MHNT CUT 2010 0 23 Ban Kheum Laos Male Dorsal.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-05-02 05:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Acosmeryx shervillii mounted specimen, male, dorsal
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think that is useful Ezarateesteban 12:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.
Cathédrale Saint-Étienne de Toulouse - Sacrifice d'Abraham - Hilaire Pader.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-05-02 05:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Cathédrale Saint-Étienne from Toulouse, "Sacrifice of Abraham " by Hilaire Pader

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.
Santa Anastasia (Verona) - Il Miracolo di S. Giacinto, di Paolo Farinati (1524-1606).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-05-02 05:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Basilica Santa Anastasia of Verona - The Miracle of St. Hyacinth by Paolo Farinati

Symbol support vote.svg Support best in scope. user:Berthold Werner

Open for review.
Rissoa gomerica 01.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2016-05-02 17:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Rissoa gomerica, Shell

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.
Ambulyx bakeri MHNT CUT 2010 0 25 Philippines dorsal.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-05-03 05:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Ambulyx bakeri mounted specimen, dorsal

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 08:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.
Bazus - La Mairie2.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-05-03 05:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Bazus, Haute-Garonne, France - The Estern new facade of the town hall

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 08:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.
Santa Anastasia (Verona) - Main altar - Giudizio universale di turone (1360).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-05-03 05:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Basilica Santa Anastasia of Verona - Choir - Judgement Day by Turone di Maxio

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.
Tiger leech (Haemadipsa picta).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2016-05-03 15:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Haemadipsa picta (Tiger leech)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.
Javanese grasshopper (Valanga nigricornis) nymph.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2016-05-03 16:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Valanga nigricornis (Javanese grasshopper) nymph

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.
Small rice grasshopper (Pseudoxya diminuta).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2016-05-03 16:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Pseudoxya diminuta (Small rice grasshopper)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.
Stable - Museo Agrícola el Patio - Tiagua.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2016-05-03 17:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Museo Agrícola el Patio, Tiagua, Lanzarote, stable
Reason:

Pictogram voting info.svg Info The farm "El Patio" is one of the largest and oldest farms of Lanzarote. It was built at the beginning of the 19th century and inhabited until 1949. Now a museum, the furnishing of the rooms, kitchen, toilet, stable, wine cellar and others represents well the way of life of an agricultural worker at the begining of the 20th century.

At that time it was the best developped and largest farm on he Island of Lanzarote. 20 farmhands with 15 camels worked on the fields of this farm. -- Llez (talk)

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.
Toilet - Museo Agrícola el Patio - Tiagua.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2016-05-03 17:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Museo Agrícola el Patio, Tiagua, Lanzarote, toilet
Reason:

Pictogram voting info.svg Info The farm "El Patio" is one of the largest and oldest farms of Lanzarote. It was built at the beginning of the 19th century and inhabited until 1949. Now a museum, the furnishing of the rooms, kitchen, toilet, stable, wine cellar and others represents well the way of life of an agricultural worker at the begining of the 20th century.

At that time it was the best developped and largest farm on he Island of Lanzarote. 20 farmhands with 15 camels worked on the fields of this farm. -- Llez (talk)
Open for review.
2016 Minolta Dynax 404si.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2016-05-03 19:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Minolta Dynax, Minolta Dynax 404si
Open for review.
2016 Porst Reflex CX6.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2016-05-03 19:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Photo Porst, Porst Reflex CX6

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.
Marisol Escobar NYWTS.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ezarateesteban on 2016-05-03 22:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Marisol Escobar, portrait in 1963

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.
Ambulyx semifervens MHNT CUT 2010 0 25 Ambon island Indonesia ventral.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-05-04 05:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Ambulyx semifervens mounted specimen, ventral

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.
Eglise Saint-Aubin (Toulouse) - Interior.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-05-04 05:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Église Saint-Aubin from Toulouse - Interior view
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Only in this scope. ~ Moheen (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.
Santa Anastasia (Verona) - Deposizione di Paolo Farinati.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-05-04 05:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Basilica Santa Anastasia of Verona - The descent from the cross by Paolo Farinati
Open for review.
Polar Bear at Amberley Museum Railway.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Bruce1eetalk on 2016-05-04 08:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Polar Bear steam locomotive
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If it is only engine then scope should be specified. ~ Moheen (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I've amended the scope – I hope that's better. —Bruce1eetalk 12:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.
Rama Zadi Temple (01).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
~ Moheen (talk) on 2016-05-04 12:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Rama Zadi Temple

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.
Rangamati Rajban Bihar Buddhist Temple.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
~ Moheen (talk) on 2016-05-04 13:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Rajbana Vihara Buddhist Temple
Used in:
See Global Usage

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.
Bloemen en knoppen van elfenbloem (Epimedium perralchicum 'Frohnleiten'). Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonkervallei.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2016-05-04 15:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Epimedium perralchicum 'Frohnleiten' Flowers and buds.
Open for review.
Amphithalamus vallei 01.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2016-05-04 17:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Amphithalamus vallei, Shell
Reason:
Pictogram voting info.svg Info This is one of the smallest shells of my collection. It is a little bit bigger than the full stop at the end of this sentence. -- Llez (talk)
Open for review.
Mill - Museo Agrícola el Patio - Tiagua.JPG
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2016-05-04 17:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Museo Agrícola el Patio, Tiagua, Lanzarote, animal-powered mill
Reason:

Pictogram voting info.svg Info The farm "El Patio" is one of the largest and oldest farms of Lanzarote. It was built at the beginning of the 19th century and inhabited until 1949. Now a museum, the furnishing of the rooms, kitchen, toilet, stable, wine cellar and others represents well the way of life of an agricultural worker at the begining of the 20th century.

At that time it was the best developped and largest farm on he Island of Lanzarote. 20 farmhands with 15 camels worked on the fields of this farm. -- Llez (talk)
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 has to be in the discussed state, while the review is ongoing. Only when all candidates are due for closure can the MVR be closed.

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

ScopeEdit

   
Nephila pilipes, Raisen district, MP, India.jpg
View
Nominated by:
Yann (talk) on 2012-02-14 15:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Nephila pilipes (Giant Wood Spider), female
Reason:
The best quality with geocoding. -- Yann (talk)
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose =>
undecided. George Chernilevsky talk 20:36, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Northern golden orb weaver (Nephila pilipes).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2016-04-30 20:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Nephila pilipes (Northern golden orb weaver) female, ventral

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There already has promoted image. Should know the sex of the animal. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:26, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

  • ✓ Done sex added. I can't find another promoted image. Charles (talk) 11:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This one :File:Nephila pilipes, Raisen district, MP, India.jpg --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks. I hadn't seen this as it's a set. Unfortunately, it's not correctly identified, not Nephila pilipes. How do we deselect VI? This is not MVR. Charles (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • MVR would be technically easier. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose IMO, the opposing candidate is Commons:Valued image candidates/Nephila pilipes, which is better as it shows both side of the animal. File:Nephila pilipes, Raisen district, MP, India.jpg also shows the legs better. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Yann:. As I said above, the (existing VI) image that you prefer is not correctly identified. It is not Nephila pilipes. Charles (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The question is more difficult than I thought. Our specialist says that we can not determine the question saw the two images that I gave him. It is possible that this is the same species with a subadult. the epigynous are not visible in the photographs. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You could change existing VI to reflect this opinion, though I am surprised by it, looking at the markings. I can't see how they would change. Also, as there were a number of similar specimens being photographed, perhaps it is unlikely that they were all sub-adults? An aberration of some sort is possible I suppose if there isn't a known sub-species that fits the images. Charles (talk) 00:03, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Personally I abandoned spider photographs. The recognitions are very difficult, and often requires use of dissection to have certainty for the subspecies.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Per Yann --Jacek Halicki (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.

Pending valued image set candidatesEdit

New valued image set nominationsEdit

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

Closed valued image set candidatesEdit