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
22,902 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
20,026 (87.4%) 
Undecided
  
1,227 (5.4%) 
Declined
  
1,649 (7.2%) 



New valued image nominationsEdit

   

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Martinvl (talk) on 2016-09-22 13:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Sixteenth century prosthetic arm
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2016-09-23 19:54 (UTC)
Scope:
1 Nadrzeczna Street in Nowa Ruda, exposure from SW
  •  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 21:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 22:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2016-09-23 19:56 (UTC)
Scope:
1 Nadrzeczna Street in Nowa Ruda, interior of the arcades

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 22:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2016-09-23 20:00 (UTC)
Scope:
2 Nadrzeczna Street in Nowa Ruda, facade
  •  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 21:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 22:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2016-09-23 20:03 (UTC)
Scope:
2 Nadrzeczna Street in Nowa Ruda, portal

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 22:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2016-09-23 21:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Helicella itala ssp. itala, white form, shell

 Comment Sorry, was linked to the wrong category; corrected now. --Llez (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 22:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jaqen (talk) on 2016-09-23 21:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Jamie Mathieson
Used in:
en:Jamie Mathieson, tr:Jamie Mathieson
  •  Support: Good quality image and best in scope. --DAJF (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 22:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jaqen (talk) on 2016-09-23 21:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Mario Malossini
Used in:
de:Mario Malossini, it:Mario Malossini

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 22:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
--Palauenc05 (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC) on 2016-09-23 22:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Wayside cross near Trierweiler-Fusenich, Germany.

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 22:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-09-24 04:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Manduca diffissa tropicalis mounted specimen male ventral

 Support Useful --Llez (talk) 16:03, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-09-24 04:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Belleserre, France. Church Saint-Pierre-ès-Liens, Bell gable.

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:28, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-09-24 04:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Palazzo Dolfin Bollani (Venice). Facade on Campo santa Marina

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:30, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
~ Moheen (talk) on 2016-09-24 17:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Binodini Dasi
Used in:
See Global Usage

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2016-09-24 21:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Wayside cross (1668) in Trier, Germany.

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2016-09-24 21:51 (UTC)
Scope:
3 Nadrzeczna Street in Nowa Ruda, facade

 Support: Good-quality image and best in scope. --DAJF (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2016-09-24 21:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Oxymeris areolata (Dark-spotted Auger), shell

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2016-09-24 21:55 (UTC)
Scope:
5 Nadrzeczna Street in Nowa Ruda, facade

 Support: Good-quality image and best in scope. --DAJF (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2016-09-24 22:00 (UTC)
Scope:
6 Nadrzeczna Street in Nowa Ruda, facade

 Support: Good-quality image and best in scope. --DAJF (talk) 00:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2016-09-24 22:07 (UTC)
Scope:
7 Nadrzeczna Street in Nowa Ruda, facade

 Support: Good-quality image and best in scope. --DAJF (talk) 00:08, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-09-25 05:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Amphonyx lucifer Mounted specimen male ventral

 Support Useful --Llez (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-09-25 05:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Belleserre, France. Church Saint-Pierre-ès-Liens, southern exposure.
  •  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 08:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-09-25 05:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Church Santi Apostoli (Venice). Ceiling by Fabio Canale St John and the eagle
  •  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 08:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Chamarasca (talk) on 2016-09-25 09:22 (UTC)
Scope:
John Ford's youth
Used in:
Articles of wikipedia about John Ford or his first films as actor or director (such as The Tornado). There are other good images of a mature or an old Ford. There are also other images of a young Ford, but this is a useful close-up.
Reason:
Detail of a picture that gives us a good close-up of a young John Ford when he was known as Jack Ford. -- Chamarasca (talk)
  •  Oppose Must connect the scope to the category that contains the image. The image is too small and of very poor quality to be labeled. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
OK. I thought VI was about value; not abount quality. Surely I was wrong.--Chamarasca (talk) 09:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jaqen (talk) on 2016-09-25 13:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Flower of Gentiana lawrencei
Used in:
ceb:Gentiana lawrencei, it:Gentiana lawrencei, sv:Gentiana lawrencei, vi:Gentiana lawrencei, war:Gentiana lawrencei, zh:线叶龙胆
  •  Support There is only one image in scope. So this one must the best. But there is another category for the synonym: Category:Gentiana farreri. There is a second picture. The categories should be fixed. --XRay talk 15:03, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • OK  Done --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Neozoon (talk) on 2016-09-24 21:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Hans Wilhelm Reiners - first Wikipedia commons picture for existing article
  •  Comment Please fix the scope. A category is missing. --XRay talk 14:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Weak  Support Category/scope is OK now. The image is used, good too. The appendix "first Wikipedia ..." is not necessary. May be another picture will come and may be it's better, then the new and better one will become VI. The quality here isn't the best, the image is not sharp enough. --XRay talk 16:57, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Scope changed from a portrait of a notable person (mayor of a big german city of Mönchengladbach) where no picture existed before, taken during an emotional speach of renaming an existing place at the name of a very famous citizen of Mönchengladbach to new scope --Neozoon (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

  •  Comment Yet you have not changed the scope. Have to write it where necessary. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2016-09-25 16:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Salem abbey church "Unsere Liebe Frau", interior

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
শাহাদাত সায়েম (talk) on 2016-09-25 16:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Collectorate Bhaban
@ Archaeodontosaurus Done-শাহাদাত সায়েম (talk) 05:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
ElisonSeg (talk) on 2016-09-25 19:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of Her Excellency, the Marquesa de Vistabella. Dona Francisca Aparicio Vistabella. Spain, 1892. Francisco Masriera.
Used in:
7 articles in 3 different languages.
  •  Comment Must connect the scope to the category that contains the image --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have checked this submission against all six criteria for the scope. AS it was lacking an English description, I have added that description. I am happy for somebody else to check my description and to support this nomination. Martinvl (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Comment The scope mix all, if the author wants to make remarks or comment he can do it in the field provided for that. I suggest the following scope:Portrait of {{c|Francisca Aparicio y Mérida}} by Francisco Masriera --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2016-09-25 20:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Wayside cross (1819) near Baldringen, Germany.
Used in:
de:Liste der Kulturdenkmäler in Baldringen

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-09-26 05:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Manduca rustica Mounted specimen male dorsal

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-09-26 05:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Palazzo Loredan a Santa Marina (Venice). Facade on Campo santa Marina

 Support --Joalpe (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-09-26 05:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Basilica di Santa Maria Gloriosa dei Frari- Venice - Madona di Ca'Pesaro by Titian
  •  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 18:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Halavar (talk) on 2016-09-26 06:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Bagrati Cathedral - bell tower. Kutaisi, Imereti, Georgia. View from N-W.
Reason:
Cultural heritage monument in Georgia, World Heritage Site -- Halavar (talk)

 Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 08:45, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
~ Moheen (talk) on 2016-09-26 12:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Mother Teresa in 1920
Used in:
See Global Usage

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lucas.Belo (talk) on 2016-09-26 16:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Cross section of Equus ferus caballus (horse) head
Used in:
EN, ES, PT

 Support Useful --J. Lunau (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2016-09-26 17:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Terebra pertusa (Perforated Auger), shell

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Mar11 (talk) on 2016-09-26 19:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Michael Madhusudan Dutt
Used in:
en
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek79 (talk) on 2016-09-12 20:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Aiguille du Goûter
Reason:
This is the largest and richest in detail picture of the Aiguille du Goûter uploaded so far. -- Jacek79 (talk)
  •  Comment It would be good to put the view orientation. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Info See the location field in the metadata. It also contains the orientation. --Jacek79 (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 22:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek79 (talk) on 2016-09-05 19:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Ford Granada (2nd generation)
Reason:
It's the best pic of a 2nd-generation Ford Granada so far. -- Jacek79 (talk)
  •  Support: Good-quality picture and best in scope. --DAJF (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

 Comment Scope should indicate US model and also scope is too broad. Charles (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
 Info I took the name of the Commons category as the scope. The generations of the European Granada were numbered in a different way so that "2nd generation" implies the U.S. version. --Jacek79 (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 22:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Mar11 (talk) on 2016-09-27 04:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Sukumar Ray
Used in:
See list

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-09-27 05:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Amphonyx lucifer mounted specimen female dorsal
Reason:
 Support Useful --Llez (talk) 10:36, 27 September 2016 (UTC) -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-09-27 05:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Belleserre, Tarn, France. Facade of the town hall
  •  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 06:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-09-27 05:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Basilica di Santa Maria Gloriosa dei Frari- Venice - Chapel Corner - Monument to Federico Corner
  •  Comment, please confirm the scope category as the image is not in the one used. DeFacto (talk). 06:27, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Done Sorry ... the angel moved overnight.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  •  Support, best in scope (whilst she stays there ;-)). DeFacto (talk). 17:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Halavar (talk) on 2016-09-27 10:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Samtavro Monastery - church of the Transfiguration. Mtskheta, Georgia. Church portal.
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2016-09-27 10:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Asphodeline lutea (Yellow Asphodel), habitus
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
DAJF (talk) on 2016-09-27 12:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Tobu 50090 series in "Flying Tojo" (blue) livery
Used in:
Global usage
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2016-09-27 16:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Zea mays (Maize "strawberry"), fruits and seeds, dried specimen

 Support Useful --J. Lunau (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
J. Lunau (talk) on 2016-09-27 20:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:WikiWand
Used in:
de:wikiwand, en:wikiwand, hu:wikiwand, nl:wikiwand, pl:wikiwand, fr:wikiwand
Reason:
Renomination (new screenshot without google map), Best in scope to show the look of wikiwand, especially created for Wikipedia. -- J. Lunau (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 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