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
25,602 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
22,538 (88%) 
Undecided
  
1,324 (5.2%) 
Declined
  
1,740 (6.8%) 



New valued image nominationsEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-03-24 10:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Conolophus subcristatus (Galápagos land iguana) head

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 19:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-03-22 12:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Microcentrum retinerve (Lesser angle-wing katydid)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Christoph (talk) on 2017-03-22 18:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Podarcis tiliguerta
Used in:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podarcis_tiliguerta
  •   Comment - You must link your scope to a Commons category. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment - Thank you - done --Christoph (talk) 10:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Will support if Englsih/Vernacular name added. Charles (talk) 19:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment It lacks the geocoding. This image Podarcis tiliguerta 2007.jpg allows to better recognize the species. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
George Ho (talk) on 2017-03-23 17:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Donald Tusk, portrait photograph
Used in:
sv:Europeiska rådet
Reason:
There are many images of Donald Tusk, but I like this one the best. -- George Ho (talk)
  •   Question - Isn't this scope a bit broad? There are plenty of images of Donald Tusk on Commons. Maybe a more appropriate, more narrow scope for a Valued Image would be "Profile shots of Donald Tusk", or something like that, in my opinion. -- Philip Terry Graham (talk) 11:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

  Comment see debate on talk page. On this one he's clearly notable, but I don't see how we can say one of the pictures in the category gallery is more valuable than the others. It's a nonsense. And I don't think we should have scopes of DT with xx and DT with YY either. Churchill with Roosevelt and Stalin would be OK! I really do think we risk ruining the reputation of VI and making fools of ourselves with pictures of living people. Charles (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Main VIC talk page. Charles (talk) 19:30, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
There hasn't been any discussion I can see that would suggest that "Donald Tusk" couldn't be a reasonable scope. Don't our readers benefit from having some VIs of him? We can start with one and either add others or replace the image with another, in time. Right? Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   CommentQuite good, but it needs geocoding. Yann (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info By looking at the background of the photo, it most likely occurred at indoors. There were bookshelves. I was able to use the Bing Translator to pinpoint the original location of the photo. I looked at the photo album and realize that Tusk visited one of the Polish universities. Therefore, Yann, I added the geocoding by copying and pasting the location from the university article. --George Ho (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support --Yann (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - It's a decent portrait shot, but as I said before, the scope is too broad. There are hundreds of pictures of Donald Tusk on Commons. I think choosing this particular image as the most valued in this very broad scope would be very controversial at best. Philip Terry Graham (talk) 16:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose I agree with PTG. Charles (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment @PhilipTerryGraham, Charlesjsharp, Ikan Kekek: I thought about narrowing the scope to either "Portrait of Donald Tusk", "Donald Tusk in 2009", "Photo shoot of Donald Tusk", "Donald Tusk in a university", or something else. Any other suggestions? --George Ho (talk) 01:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment No scope would persuade me. Charles (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 2 oppose =>
declined. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Narrowed the scope and re-nominated the image. --George Ho (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Oppose As above. Charles (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Charles: There are only a few potential candidates now. Why do you oppose? Regards, Yann (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  • 1. Because it's a meaningless category, because the photos in it are not 'portraits'. 2. Even within this scope, we cannot judge which is most valuable. 3. Because a VI should be the most valuable image, irrespective of whether it is a studio portrait or a journalist's photo or whatever. 4. Because there are many images of this man on Commons and the choice of this one is SUBJECTIVE. Where possible, VI judging should be OBJECTIVE. For instance, some people prefer a smiling face, others a stern one. You and the nominator prefer a smirking face. As I said above, it is a nonsense for us to pretend we know best. Charles (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Obviously I need a rest from VI! Charles (talk) 16:54, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Neutral - The scope has been narrowed, but there are still other images in the scope that can easily be thought of as the most valued of this scope. I agree with Charles on this one. It is a matter of subjectivity whether or not this is the most valued image of the scope. Either way, it'd be a lot better to bring this image and the other images of its scope into a most valued review instead. I'll be sure to do that regardless of whether this one fails or passes this initial review. The only way to bring objectivity would be a consensus discussion on which is the most valued from a technical and quality standpoint, since they all look the same visually. Philip Terry Graham (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JeanBono (talk) on 2017-03-24 08:27 (UTC)
Scope:
La Madonna tra San Giovanni Battista e Sant'Agostino by Giovanni Permeniate
Reason:
Painting by Giovanni Permeniate, a greek painter working in Venice towards the end of the seventeenth century. -- JeanBono (talk)
  •   Support Only one. Yann (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 19:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JeanBono (talk) on 2017-03-24 08:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Ritratto del Doge Paolo Renier by Lodovico Gallina
Reason:
Painting by Lodovico Gallina, 18th century painter in Venice. -- JeanBono (talk)
  •   Support Only one. Yann (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 19:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JeanBono (talk) on 2017-03-24 08:42 (UTC)
Scope:
San Michele Arcangelo combatte contro Satana by Guariento
Reason:
Painting by Guariento di Arpo, italian 14th century painter. -- JeanBono (talk)
  •   Support Only one. Yann (talk) 11:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 19:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JeanBono (talk) on 2017-03-24 08:55 (UTC)
Scope:
San Cristoforo by Stefano Veneziano
Reason:
Painting of Saint Christopher by Stefano Veneziano, italian 14th cenruty painter. -- JeanBono (talk)
  •   Support Only one. Yann (talk) 11:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 19:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JeanBono (talk) on 2017-03-24 09:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Angeli Musicanti by Stefano da Verona
Reason:
Painting by Stefano da Verona (also known as Stefano da Zevio), 15th century italian painter. -- JeanBono (talk)
  •   Support Only one. Yann (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 19:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-03-23 10:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Iguana iguana (Green iguana) juvenile

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 19:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-03-23 10:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Iguana iguana (Green iguana) juvenile, head

  Support Useful (The head is better displayed if you frame it tighter.) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes I know, but I don't like to make my images too small. Charles (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 19:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-03-24 10:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Anolis porcatus (Cuban green anole)

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:04, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 19:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-03-24 10:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Semiotus distinctus (Click beetle)
  •   Support - Strangely, this seems to be the only photo of a living specimen on Commons, and since I understand that mounted specimens are not considered part of this scope, I support promoting this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 19:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2017-03-24 13:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Physeter macrocephalus (Sperm Whale), Skeleton, Morro Jable, Fuerteventura

  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:06, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 19:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Bodhisattwa (talk) on 2017-03-24 15:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Ctenoptilum vasava, Tawny Angle, dorsal

  Support useful. Charles (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

  Comment - Yes, useful and best in scope, but I thought you would be the one to point out that there are no geo coordinates in the file. Bodhisattwa, could you add some? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
  Comment, @Ikan Kekek:, User:Atudu has added the geo coordinate in the description. Thanks. -- Bodhisattwa (talk) 03:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Good, and now I   Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:34, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 19:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
D Y O L F 77[Talk] on 2017-03-24 15:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Lablabi: Whole dish view
Used in:
fr:Lablabi
Reason:
Before eating Lablabi, ingredients must be mixed, the image shows the whole dish before ingredients are mixed. -- — D Y O L F 77[Talk]
  •   Question - Seems useful, but to be clear, isn't water added to these ingredients, to make a soup? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
    • Hi Ikan Kekek, no it's not a soup, we don't add water, all ingredients are shown in the picture (the red one is Harissa). Before you eat Lablabi you have to mix the contents with a spoon. Regards. — D Y O L F 77[Talk] 16:54, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
      • It looks delicious, but I have yet to have the pleasure.   Support - useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 19:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Bodhisattwa (talk) on 2017-03-24 16:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Delias agostina, Yellow Jezebel (ventral)

  Support useful. Charles (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 19:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-03-24 16:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Manduca vestalis mounted specimen male ventral

  Support useful. Charles (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 19:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-03-24 16:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of a Gentleman in his Study by Lorenzo Lotto, Gallerie dell'Accademia in Venice
  •   Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 09:27, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 19:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Philip Terry Graham (talk) on 2017-03-24 16:28 (UTC)
Scope:
National Carillon, eastern view, daytime
  •   Best in Scope, all criteria met IMHO --kaʁstn Dis/Cat 17:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 19:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
~ Moheen (keep talking) on 2017-03-24 17:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Botanical Garden and Eco-Park, Sitakunda, entrance
Used in:
See Global Usage
  •   Support - Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 19:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
~ Moheen (keep talking) on 2017-03-24 18:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Zilla Shilpakala Academy, Chittagong, entrance
Used in:
See Global Usage

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:08, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 19:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-03-24 18:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Caracara plancus (Southern crested caracara) adult head

  Comment The correct category must be given in the scope link. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

A single click should be enough to find the right category.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
It is, isn't it? What are you getting on a single click that isn't Category:Caracara plancus? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I must be very tired but I do not see it.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  • No, you are right. Sub-category was not in the right place. Charles (talk) 16:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support - Best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 19:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Bodhisattwa (talk) on 2017-03-24 18:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Gerosis phisara phisara, Dusky Yellow-breast Flat, dorsal

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 19:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Bodhisattwa (talk) on 2017-03-24 19:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Seseria sambara, Notched Seseria, dorsal

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 19:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2017-03-24 20:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Cernuella cisalpina (Maritime Gardensnail), shell
  •   Support - Some of the very small pictures show several varieties of shells, but this is of such obviously higher quality that it wins. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Triggerhippie4 (talk) on 2017-03-24 20:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Mosaics of Christ Pantocrator
Used in:
en:Christ Pantocrator

  Oppose The scope is too wide. It is necessary to give the name of the place where the work is visible. But in this case ISR-2013-Jerusalem-Holy Sepulchre-dome.jpg is very superior and it is already promoted in VI.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2017-03-25 09:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Wayside cross (18th ctry.) in Schankweiler, Germany.
Used in:
de:Liste der Kulturdenkmäler in Schankweiler

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2017-03-25 15:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Wayside cross (1716) in Eisenach (Eifel), Germany.
Used in:
de:Liste der Kulturdenkmäler in Eisenach (Eifel)

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
--Pierre André (talk) 10:48, 25 March 2017 (UTC) on 2017-03-25 10:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint Sebastian on stained glass windows in St Sebastien church, Annappes (France).
Used in:
Global usage

  Question The right side of the window seems odd, is it distorted in reality? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  Done a correction distorsion with RawTherapee on the right vault. Regards, --Pierre André (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
~ Moheen (keep talking) on 2017-03-25 16:18 (UTC)
Scope:
DC's bungalow, DC Hill, entrance
Used in:
See Global Usage
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-03-25 16:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Apatura ilia f. clytie mounted specimen male dorsal

  Comment "...mounted specimen male dorsal" (as in your other nominations) would be a better scope --Llez (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

  •   Done You are right. Do you know why I like photography? Because my dyslexia does not see too much ... but a little in the scopes   --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Useful --Llez (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-03-25 16:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Madonna dell'Orto (Venice) - Portrait of Blessed Niccolò Giustinian

  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-03-25 16:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Santa Giustina (Padua) - Chapel of Arnaldo da Limena

  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2017-03-25 17:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Fuchsia 'Charelke Dop' Flower.

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2017-03-25 19:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Turris steinvorthi, shell
  •   Support - Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2017-03-25 21:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Wayside cross (1741) in Wißmannsdorf-Hermesdorf, Germany.
Used in:
de:Liste der Kulturdenkmäler in Wißmannsdorf
  •   Support - Unique in scope, useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
kaʁstn Dis/Cat on 2017-03-26 09:08 (UTC)
Scope:
St. Maria Magdalena, Olsberg-Gevelinghausen (south facade)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
kaʁstn Dis/Cat on 2017-03-26 09:09 (UTC)
Scope:
High altar of St. Peter, Rheinberg

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
kaʁstn Dis/Cat on 2017-03-26 09:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Pulpit of St. Peter, Rheinberg

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
kaʁstn Dis/Cat on 2017-03-26 09:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Central nave inside St. Peter, Rheinberg

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:33, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
~ Moheen (keep talking) on 2017-03-26 10:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Govinda Gunalanker Hostel, entrance
Used in:
See Global Usage

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
~ Moheen (keep talking) on 2017-03-26 10:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Chittagong University Museum
Used in:
See Global Usage

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2017-03-26 11:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Wayside cross at Savelborn, Luxembourg
Used in:
lb:Lëscht vun de Weekräizer zu Lëtzebuerg

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:43, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2017-03-26 11:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Wayside shrine (1871) near Medernach, Luxembourg
Used in:
lb:Lëscht vun de Weekräizer zu Lëtzebuerg

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
~ Moheen (keep talking) on 2017-03-26 12:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Office of the General Manager of Bangladesh Railway (front)
Used in:
See Global Usage

  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-03-26 15:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Ambulyx japonica japonica mounted specimen male dorsal

  Support Useful --Llez (talk) 05:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-03-26 15:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Campanile of San Nicolò dei Mendicoli (Venice) on campiello de l'oratorio
  •   Comment Don't you think that image should be connected within this scope! ~ Moheen (keep talking) 20:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Done Take advantage of your youth, becoming old is often mistaken   --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
    • I hope it isn't too petty, but isn't the scope tautological now with "Campanile" and "bell tower"? I would remove the last one. --kaʁstn Dis/Cat 06:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
      • This illustrates well what I said... Thanks --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
        • Thanks, IMHO better.   Best in Scope. --kaʁstn Dis/Cat 07:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-03-26 15:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Santa Giustina (Padua) - Chapel of the Blessed Sacrament

  Best in Scope, all criteria met. --kaʁstn Dis/Cat 17:31, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
FredD (talk) on 2017-03-26 15:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Swimming sea cucumber (Pelagothuria natatrix)
Reason:
Only the third observation in History, first one with high-res pictures. Very rare and strange animal, only ever-swimming echinoderm. -- FredD (talk)
  •   Support - Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
kaʁstn Dis/Cat on 2017-03-27 06:48 (UTC)
Scope:
House Schulplatz 12, Neukirchen-Vluyn (exterior)
Reason:
heritage building. No cardinal direction in scope because the house has only this main facade. -- kaʁstn Dis/Cat

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
kaʁstn Dis/Cat on 2017-03-27 06:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Main entrance of the house Schulplatz 12, Neukirchen-Vluyn
Reason:
heritage building, original front of 1899. -- kaʁstn Dis/Cat
  •   Support - Could be useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
kaʁstn Dis/Cat on 2017-03-27 06:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Baroque portal (1720) by Josias Wolrat Brützel of Hartwigsches Haus, Korbach

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
PumpkinSky talk on 2017-03-27 10:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Pyrus pyrifolia (Asian pear), pollinated by Apis mellifera

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

  •   Oppose I do not think we need a scope like this. This implies we could have a scope for every insect on every flower. Now that would mean I could submit 1000 new VIs but I don't like it. Charles (talk) 22:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Charlesjsharp: and FYI @Archaeodontosaurus:So what's the difference in this and "Iguana iguana (Green iguana) juvenile, head", which you yourself nominated? You could have ""Iguana iguana (Green iguana) 'any of several age stages', 'any of several body parts"...? Flowers are pollinated by bees and hummingbirds and only certain species pollinate certain flowers; it's a fairly finite number of species that pollinate any specified flower species. PumpkinSky talk 13:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment Please check VI nomination guidelines for number of different scopes suggested for animals. Apis mellifera pollinates hundreds of plants. Charles (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
JeanBono (talk) on 2017-03-27 11:02 (UTC)
Scope:
La Crocifissione by Hugo van der Goes
Reason:
15th-century painting of the Crucifixion of Christ. -- JeanBono (talk)
  •   Question - Without having seen the painting, File:Hugo van der Goes - Crucifixion - WGA09649.jpg has colors I'd more readily expect. You're sure your colors are correct and the ones in that photo are wrong? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
    I'm not a specialist of art, the paintings in Museo Correr were exposed in rather dark rooms. I retouched the white balance of my RAWs with the white background of the pattern, which contains inventory number of the painting. Colors are indeed different from the WGA pictures but I find mine more relevant about the colors. JeanBono (talk) 06:19, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JeanBono (talk) on 2017-03-27 11:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Crocefissione by Jacopo Bellini
Reason:
15th-century painting of the Crucifixion of Christ. -- JeanBono (talk)
  •   Support - Now that's what a call a valuable image! This is the only photo on Commons of a great painting by Bellini. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
JeanBono (talk) on 2017-03-27 11:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Il martirio di San Mamante by Francesco De' Franceschi
Reason:
15th-century painting of Saint Mammes. -- JeanBono (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JeanBono (talk) on 2017-03-27 12:08 (UTC)
Scope:
La morte di San Mamante by Francesco De' Franceschi
Reason:
15th-century painting of Saint Mammes. -- JeanBono (talk)
  •   Support - Unique in scope on Commons, useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
JeanBono (talk) on 2017-03-27 12:04 (UTC)
Scope:
La presentazione di Gesù al tempio by Rueland Frueauf d. Ä.
Reason:
15th-century painting of the presentation of Jesus Christ at the Temple. -- JeanBono (talk)
  •   Support - Unique in scope, useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-03-27 15:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Apatura ilia f. clytie Mounted specimen male ventral

  Support Is the scope correct? Some websites have it as "Apatura ilia ssp. ilia f. clytie" Charles (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Yes it is its full name which is not very used. The name of the scope is the most common.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:01, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-03-27 15:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Facade of church st. Daniel of Padua

  Support Best in scope --Llez (talk) 17:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-03-27 15:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Madonna dell'Orto (Venice) - The faith by Pietro Ricchi
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 20:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2017-03-27 17:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Vittina coromandeliana ( Coromandel Nerite), shell, form with straight bands
  •   Support - Best in scope and an obvious QI, possibly more. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:27, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
kaʁstn Dis/Cat on 2017-03-28 06:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Main building (1928) of former Diesterwegschule, Neukirchen-Vluyn (east facade)

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
kaʁstn Dis/Cat on 2017-03-28 07:32 (UTC)
Scope:
TROX headquarters, Neukirchen-Vluyn

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
kaʁstn Dis/Cat on 2017-03-28 07:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Headquarters of Sparkasse am Niederrhein, Moers

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Philip Terry Graham (talk) on 2017-03-28 12:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Heathcote railway station, Sydney (1886–2016), from its footbridge
Used in:
en:Heathcote railway station

Previous reviews

Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-03-28 15:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Ambulyx japonica japonica mounted specimen male ventral
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-03-28 15:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Madonna dell'Orto (Venice) - Chapel St Mauro
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-03-28 15:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Saints Cosmas and Damian saved by the angel by Antonio Balestra
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