Commons:Valued image candidates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Skip to current candidates Valued Image links:

How to nominate an image for VI statusEdit

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

Adding a new nomination (image)Edit

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


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

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

|My-image-filename.jpg

so that it looks like this:

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

and save the candidate list.


RenominationEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

|nominator=~~~

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

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

Step 6: Add the candidate to the candidates list.

How to open a Most Valued ReviewEdit

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

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

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

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

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

How to review the candidatesEdit

How to review an imageEdit

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

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

Review procedureEdit

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


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


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

Changes in scope during the review periodEdit

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

You can submit new nominations starting on COM:VIC.

Pending valued image candidatesEdit

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache
43,589 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
39,256 (90.1%) 
Undecided
  
2,066 (4.7%) 
Declined
  
2,267 (5.2%) 


New valued image nominationsEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-11 05:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Cymbalaria muralis (Ivy-leaved toadflax) - Habitus
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 19:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2021-06-11 12:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Viriola intergranosa, shell
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 06:28 or 18:28 (UTC)
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Spurzem (talk) on 2021-06-11 14:26 (UTC)
Scope:
"Schorschjungen carrying the patron saint St. George through the village", relief by Paul Milles at the fountain in the church square of St. Georg (Urmitz)
Used in:
de: Urmitz
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 06:28 or 18:28 (UTC)
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 11 June 2021
Scope:
Satarupa gopala (Large White Flat), dorsal
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 06:28 or 18:28 (UTC)
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2021-06-11 16:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Inflorescence of Camellia × williamsii 'Roger Hall'
  •   Support. Excellent image, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 06:28 or 18:28 (UTC)
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-11 16:28 (UTC)
Scope:
The Nine Arches, Earlestown
Used in:
Wikidata:Q88917388
Reason:
Best view of the gable end indicating its former use as a chapel -- Rodhullandemu (talk)
  •   Support. Good and useful image -- Spurzem (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 06:28 or 18:28 (UTC)
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-11 15:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of St John the Baptist, Earlestown
Used in:
Wikidata:Q7593718
  •   Comment Maybe it could be corrected a little for the percpetive to be perfect...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
  Comment Managed to get back today for a reshoot. Something was pulling the transept out of vertical, but it should be fixed now. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:20, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 06:28 or 18:28 (UTC)
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-11 11:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Norman Harvey VC - stone at Earlestown War Memorial
Used in:
Wikidata:Q7052331
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 06:28 or 18:28 (UTC)
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-11 11:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Earlestown Market Cross
Used in:
Wikidata:Q26494891

  Support Best in scope and used. --Tagooty (talk) 06:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 06:28 or 18:28 (UTC)
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-12 04:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Vicia sativa (Common vetch)- immature fruit
  •   Support. Excellent, useful and often used -- Spurzem (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 06:28 or 18:28 (UTC)
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-12 04:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Deux chevaux et groom (Two horses and groom) by Toulouse-Lautrec in Musée Toulouse-Lautrec Albi

  Support Best in scope. --Tagooty (talk) 06:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 06:28 or 18:28 (UTC)
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2021-06-12 05:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Ancilla ampla (Wide-mouth Ancilla), shell

  Support Best in scope. --Tagooty (talk) 06:17, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 06:28 or 18:28 (UTC)
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2021-06-10 03:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Exterior wood carvings, Jagannathi Temple, Bekhli, Kullu, Himachal.
Used in:
en:Bhuvaneshvari
Reason:
Depicts goddess Bhuvaneswari, who is the main deity of the temple, riding a lion, her traditional vehicle. --Tagooty (talk) 06:13, 12 June 2021 (UTC) -- Tagooty (talk)
  •   Support. Useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 06:28 or 18:28 (UTC)
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Spurzem (talk) on 2021-06-12 11:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Haus Korbisch in Karden, 13th century, view from south
Used in:
de: Treis-Karden, de: Haus Korbisch, de: Liste romanischer Profanbauten, fr: Maison Korbisch
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 06:28 or 18:28 (UTC)
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2021-06-12 12:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Cicindela campestris (Green tiger beetle) dorsal
Open for review.
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-12 17:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Earlestown Town Hall
Used in:
Wikidata:Q26671850
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 06:28 or 18:28 (UTC)
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-12 17:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Newton-le-Willows library
Used in:
Wikidata:Q107169963
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 06:28 or 18:28 (UTC)
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Andrei (talk) on 2021-06-12 19:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Maciej Hołub
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ezarateesteban on 2021-06-12 22:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Railway bridge over Santa Lucía River in 1880
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Lorax (talk) on 2021-06-12 01:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Broken open Fortune Cookie
Reason:
Used in the fortune cookie article for many languages wikipedias and wiktionaries, used as the category picture in commons, shows how the fortune in the fortune cookie is situated inside the cookie as well as the shape and texture of a fortune cookie. -- Lorax (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
GRDN711 (talk) on 2021-06-13 00:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Ocean Endeavour (ship, 1982) - IMO 7625811
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-13 04:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Viola arvensis (Field pansy) - Immature capsule (fruit)

  Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 05:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-13 04:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Chasseur à cheval (chasseur on horseback) by Toulouse-Lautrec in Musée Toulouse-Lautrec Albi

  Support Useful --Llez (talk) 05:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2021-06-13 05:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Olivella columellaris, shell
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-13 18:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Waiting room at Earlestown railway station
Used in:
Wikidata:Q26627083
Reason:
Full-on shot difficult due to the building's width, so I think this is the best. -- Rodhullandemu (talk)

  Comment A very good picture, but I suggest that you add "{{Listed building England |1=1343264}}" to the description. I know that this is on the category page, but IMO there is no harm in adding it to the image description. Martinvl (talk) 20:35, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

  •   Comment Interesting point, but that would add the image to Category:Listed buildings in England with known IDs when it's already there by virtue of the category. You'll see that the category contains over 76,000 images, and I don't know how much duplication there is, but I tend to avoid redundancy wherever possible, because that IS the function and purpose of categories. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:53, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
    •   Info@Rodhullandemu: In general, I agree with you regarding duplication of data, but when I checked the instrucions on categories and on descriptions, I saw that the instruction for categories was to "explain... what should be in the category, if the title is not clear or unambiguous enough on its own" and for descriptions to "provide information to support all subject categories of the file". This tells me that the information in the Category file was over and above what was required while in your case the description field fell short of the requirements. Martinvl (talk) 13:58, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:25, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Martinvl (talk) on 2021-06-13 20:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Carlisle Cathedral South Portal
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-14 05:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Geranium dissectum (Cut-leaved Crane's-bill ) - infrutescence
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-14 05:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Alphonse de Toulouse-Lautrec en fauconnier (Alphonse de Toulouse-Lautrec as a falconer) by Toulouse-Lautrec in Musée Toulouse-Lautrec Albi
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2021-06-14 05:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Lirophora latilirata, right valve
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Spurzem (talk) on 2021-06-14 12:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Oriel window in Marktstraße 1, one of the so called Vier Türme in Koblenz
Reason:
There are already some photos of this house in the Commons, but I think that my image of this morning is the best so far. -- Spurzem (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2021-06-14 05:00 (UTC)
Scope:
View of "Nieuw Bruggetje" over the city canal in Stavoren.
  •   Support. Beautiful and useful image -- Spurzem (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-14 11:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Sealand Road, Chester - No. 5
Used in:
See global usage
  •   Comment Useful, but I think you should include the name of the town in the scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
    •   Comment So it turns out that there's one in Manchester, but otherwise unique. Hmmm. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Question Do you have an argument to share? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment Sorry, No idea what that means. I've changed the scope. Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-15 05:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Strobilotoma typhaecornis Lateral view
  •   Comment I think you might say this is too blurred to be valuable! Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-15 05:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Vieille femme assise sur un banc à Céleyran (Old woman sitting on a bench in Céleyran) by Toulouse-Lautrec in Musée Toulouse-Lautrec Albi

  Support Useful --Llez (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2021-06-15 05:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Olivella semistriata, shell

  Support Best in scope and used in 6 Wikipedias. --Tagooty (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
A1Cafel (talk) on 2021-06-15 10:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Statue of Liberty at dawn during Solar eclipse of 2021 June 10
  •   Comment Connecting two Commons categories in a single nomination is not done here. Nice photo, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Spurzem (talk) on 2021-06-15 12:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Allegorical turtle as a reminiscence of the automobile manufacturer August Horch at the Erfinderbrunnen in Koblenz, made by Gernot Rumpf in 1983
Reason:
I haven't found a place to put the image in some text yet, but I think it's beautiful and valuable. -- Spurzem (talk)

  Comment Beautiful image. The scope appears to be a description of the specific image rather than generic. --Tagooty (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Hallo Tagooty, with the best will, I don't understand what is supposed to be wrong with the scope. Sometimes the description is too short for the critics, sometimes too extensive. I said that this turtle with wheels is a allegorical sculpture as a reminiscence of the German automobile manufacturer Horch. Further you read that it is a part of a fountain (Erfinderbrunnen) made by Gernot Rumpf in 1983. Best regards -- Spurzem (talk) 07:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • If I may, I think the scope is OK, and I'm not sure what would be good to remove from it, if a decision were made to do that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
  • I get your point about different reviewers giving conflicting advice! It is true that COM:VISC does not specify how to write the scope, so I'll accept the scope that you prefer. I'd like to explain my reasoning for your consideration.
    To me, the scope needs to be concise, so it is easily understood, so it may be used as a caption for the image in a gallery, etc. It should contain just enough text to uniquely identify the subject, with detailed descriptions elsewhere -- in the filename, summary, etc. E.g. "Turtle sculpture in the Erfinderbrunnen in Koblenz" is unique, the rest to me is redundant.
    I think "automobile manufacturer" is not a good descripton of August Horch, the term is normally used for a company. The lead sections in en.wiki and de.wiki describe him as a "German engineer", "automobile pioneer", "German mechanical engineer" and "founder of automobile companies Horch and Audi".
    Once you decide whether or not to modify the scope, I'll support the nomination. --Tagooty (talk) 15:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ezarateesteban on 2021-06-15 16:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Hospital Vilardebó in 1890
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Spurzem (talk) on 2021-06-15 17:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Erfinderbrunnen in Koblenz, made by Gernot Rumpf in 1983, total view from southeast
Used in:
de: Gernot Rumpf, de: Liste der Brunnen in Koblenz, de: Industrie- und Handelskammer zu Koblenz

  Support Best in scope and used in de.wikipedia --Tagooty (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2021-06-16 04:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Stavoren. Project "Stavers Belang"
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2021-06-16 05:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Ooliticia meriani, shell
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-16 05:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Geranium molle (Dove's-foot Crane's-bill) - Plant habit
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-16 05:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Le jeune Routy à Céleyran (Young Routy in Céleyran) by Toulouse-Lautrec in Musée Toulouse-Lautrec Albi
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Domob (talk) on 2021-06-16 08:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Landsgemeinde-Brunnen, Appenzell
Reason:
Best in scope --Domob (talk) 08:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC) -- Domob (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2021-06-16 09:09 (UTC)
Scope:
John Wayne's Cabin, Goulding's Lodge motel, Utah
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 [discuter] on 2021-06-16 09:38 (UTC)
Scope:
main building of Jardins des papillons (Hunawihr)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 [discuter] on 2021-06-16 09:38 (UTC)
Scope:
World War II memorials in Haut-Rhin in Illhaeusern
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 [discuter] on 2021-06-16 09:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Char M10 Destroyer (Illhaeusern)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2021-06-16 15:25 (UTC)
Scope:
0-8-0T Henschel No.15968 (Brigadelok), in Brugelette, Belgique
Used in:
Pairi Daiza
  •   Support. Useful and used. The picture was slightly tilted. I turned it about 12 degrees to the right. Do you agree? -- Spurzem (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Martinvl (talk) on 2021-06-16 17:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Tomb of Francis Close, Carlisle Cathedral
Reason:
The English Wikipedia has an article on Francis Close which gives this image its notability. -- Martinvl (talk)
Open for review.


Pending Most valued review candidatesEdit

Scope: Kreuzberg seen from southwestEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Milseburg (talk) on 2018-04-12 15:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Kreuzberg seen from southwest
Used in:
de:Kreuzberg (Rhön)
Reason:
Most representative view of this prominent mountain -- Milseburg (talk)
  •   Support - Agreed. Best in scope, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Oppose in favor of the suggested replacement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 19:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Milseburg (talk) on 2021-03-30 09:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Kreuzberg seen from the southwest
Reason:
New version, higher resolution, better quality, now best in scope -- Milseburg (talk)
  •   Support The key point for VIC is that this photo is in better light and sharper at review size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 19:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Scope: Macaca mulattaEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Yann (talk) on 2010-08-26 07:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Macaca mulatta

  Support This one seems to me the best --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

MVR Scores: 
1. Rhesus Macaque, Red Fort, Agra.jpg: +1 <--
2. Rhesus Macaque, Red Fort, Agra, India.jpg: 0
3. Monkey yawning 1.jpg: 0
=>
File:Rhesus Macaque, Red Fort, Agra.jpg: Promoted. <--
File:Rhesus Macaque, Red Fort, Agra, India.jpg: Declined. 
File:Monkey yawning 1.jpg: Declined.
--Myrabella (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  •   Oppose in favor of the other photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 19:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2021-04-26 09:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Macaca mulatta mulatta (Rhesus macaque), male
  •   Support Much sharper than the other photo at review size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  •   Support Perfect --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 19:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Scope: Theresa May, portrait photographyEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
AlbanGeller (talk) on 2020-06-01 12:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Theresa May, portrait photography
Used in:
Theresa May
Scores: 
1. Theresa May 2015.jpg: -1 (current VI within same scope)
2. Theresa May (2015) (cropped).jpg: +1 <--
=>
File:Theresa May 2015.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former.
File:Theresa May (2015) (cropped).jpg: Promoted. <--

  Scope changed from Theresa May in 2015, portrait photograph to Theresa May, portrait photography --ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2021 (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".

  •   Support More flattering. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 19:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) on 2021-05-06 13:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Theresa May, portrait photography
Reason:
Best-quality image of Mrs May on the Commons. -- ᴀlbanɢeller (talk)
  •   Question If it's the best image of her, why is the year it was taken significant for the scope? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: feel free to change the scope if you like. ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
You're the nominator. I'll leave it to you and then see how many photos are in scope before making a decision about which if any I consider best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
OK Ikan, I'll change the scope to Theresa May. ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Please link to only one Commons category. I will see whether there aren't too many photos for me to compare. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
OK, it looks to me like the category is official portraits of her only, but there's already a VI in that category - see File:Theresa May (2015) (cropped).jpg. Therefore, if you believe another photo is better in scope, you need to do a Most Valuable Review faceoff. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: OK, I've removed the second category. ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia links aren't normally used in scopes, but my main point is that you need to do a Most Valuable Review. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I'll change it back to Theresa May in 2016 for now. Wikipedia link removed. ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment the scope has to be the same for all candidates in an MVR. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  Scope changed from Theresa May in 2016 to Theresa May --ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2021 (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".

  •   Oppose Emphasizes the wrinkles around her eyes more. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 19:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
To initiate a most valued review, please go to the dedicated MVR sub page.
Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache

All open candidates in an MVR have to have their status set as "discussed" while the review is ongoing. Only when all candidates are due for closure can the MVR be closed.

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

Pending valued image set candidatesEdit

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