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
25,097 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
22,067 (87.9%) 
Undecided
  
1,307 (5.2%) 
Declined
  
1,723 (6.9%) 



New valued image nominationsEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-02-14 18:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Madonna dell'Orto (Venice) - Portrait of the Doge Orso II Participazio

  Oppose The proposed scope for this image is inappropriate as it concentrates on the church and not the portrait. However the scope "Orso II Participazio" or "Doge Orso II Participazio" would both be excellent choices of scope for the image. If the scope is changed to one of these or something similar, I will support this nomination. May I also note that this image is used in 24 Wikipedia artciles (in different languages). Of those 24 articles, 13 relate to Orso II Participazio himself, 8 to lists of Doges of Venice and only 3 to the church. Martinvl (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

  •   Comment There are in the San Mauro chapel of the Madonna dell'Orto several dozens of portraits all dating from 1662 and featuring little known saints; For some it is even the only representation. This collection is very well known and very poorly exposed. I'm starting to try to make this inventory. The scope could be the one proposed to you and nothing is opposed to that this image is again represented with this scope. The current scope is perfectly defined and is in no way an obstacle. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment, @Martinvl: don't forget that a single image may be nominated several times, each time with a different scope. Are you saying this image simply does not belong in this scope, or that you think there is another scope it could be nominated under too? DeFacto (talk). 07:38, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Info @DeFacto: - I have already given my answer - see my statement above. Martinvl (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  Support, is OK for me, useful and best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 07:07, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

  •   Support per DeFacto. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support I see no problems. Excellent work (but @DeFacto: I've never heard of the idea that "a single image may be nominated several times, each time with a different scope".) 11:41, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Picture and scope are fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support--Tiven2240 (talk) 07:50, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 19:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Horadrim (talk) on 2017-02-15 16:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Teaching model representing the end stage of the process of gastrulation.
Used in:
GL; EN; PT; IT
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Horadrim (talk) on 2017-02-15 16:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Didactic model of a human embryonic development.
Used in:
GL; EN; PT; IT
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Horadrim (talk) on 2017-02-15 16:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Teaching model representing outset of the stage of the process of gastrulation.
Used in:
GL; EN; PT; IT
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lucas.Belo (talk) on 2017-02-15 17:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Sus domesticus (domestic pig) kidneys. After technique of formalin fixation.
Used in:
EN; PT

  Comment In caption: either in the title or in the description the name of the species in binomial must appear. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Archaeodontosaurus It's ok now? Thanks! -- Lucas.Belo (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 19:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lucas.Belo (talk) on 2017-02-15 17:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Sus domesticus (domestic pig) testis after technique of formalin fixation
Used in:
EN; PT

  Comment In caption: either in the title or in the description the name of the species in binomial must appear. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Archaeodontosaurus It's ok now? Thanks! --Lucas.Belo (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 19:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
--Pierre André (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2017 (UTC) on 2017-02-16 21:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Paintings on silk at Artisans Angkor.
Used in:
Global usage

  Comment The scope is too broad; But I have a hard time finding a scope that suits this image. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  •   Comment Thank you for your advice. Perhaps the scope "Paintings on silk" is better? Best regards. --Pierre André (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • That's a much broader scope! That would be like nominating a photo in the scope "Oil painting"! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
DeFacto (talk). on 2017-02-17 17:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Newtonmore curling rink (in summer) viewed from the south-west
Used in:
en:Newtonmore

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Best to put 'in summer'. Charles (talk) 17:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Tehe Charles, you are correct!   I have done it, thanks. DeFacto (talk). 18:14, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  Scope changed from Newtonmore curling rink viewed from the south-west to Newtonmore curling rink (in summer) viewed from the south-west --DeFacto (talk). 18:14, 18 February 2017 (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".

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 19:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
DeFacto (talk). on 2017-02-17 17:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Panorama of northern West Looe viewed from East Looe
Used in:
en:Looe

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 19:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
DeFacto (talk). on 2017-02-17 18:48 (UTC)
Scope:
The Western Belle sailing on Ullswater
Used in:
en:MV Western Belle, en:Ullswater

  Comment It is normal to include a vessel's IMO number in the description - see for example here. Also, if you are illustrating the vessel itself, the photo could be cropped. Martinvl (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

@Martinvl: I have no idea what the vessel's IMO number is, or how to find it if it has one, and I don't see one mentioned in the enwiki article either. I've nominated the picture in the context of where it works - Ullwater, rather than purely of the vessel itself. DeFacto (talk). 14:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 19:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2017-02-17 19:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Cyclophorus philippinarum, shell
  •   Support - Unique in scope and useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2017-02-17 19:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Iglesia de San Bartolomé de Tirajana, Gran Canaria, sacramental altar

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Yann (talk) on 2017-02-17 19:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Jean-Étienne Dufour, tomb

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
George Ho (talk) on 2017-02-17 19:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Rupert Graves
Reason:
The only image as of now, derived from File:Rupert Graves 2010.jpg, which has a watermark. -- George Ho (talk)
  •   Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
George Ho (talk) on 2017-02-17 19:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Damien Chazelle
Reason:
As of now, though cropped, the photo looks nice and has some merits. -- George Ho (talk)
  •   Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 21:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
--Pierre André (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC) on 2017-02-17 21:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Statue of the Leper King at Angkor Thom
Used in:
Global usage

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Yann (talk) on 2017-02-17 21:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Yukiya Amano, portrait photograph
Reason:
I have reviewed a lot of images. I settled on this one because: high quality, nice expression (smile), look at the camera, neutral grey background, not too strong flash reflection on his head, not too old (2014), geolocation, etc. -- Yann (talk)

  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
--Pierre André (talk) 09:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC) on 2017-02-18 09:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Nong Nokkheane Checkpoint, Stung Treng
Used in:
Global usage
  Done Thank you for your advice.--Pierre André (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-02-18 10:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Caprimulgus climacurus climacurus (Long-tailed nightjar) male

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-02-18 10:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Caprimulgus climacurus climacurus (Long-tailed nightjar) male head

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-02-18 10:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Centropus senegalensis senegalensis (Senegal coucal)

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-02-18 16:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Manduca incisa mounted female ventral

  Support useful. Charles (talk) 17:57, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-02-18 16:34 (UTC)
Scope:
David by Domenico Fetti, Gallerie dell'Accademia in Venice
  •   Support, useful and certainly best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 18:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
--Pierre André (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2017 (UTC) on 2017-02-18 17:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Garuda in Prasat Kravan
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 18:36, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2017-02-18 18:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Mangelia diatula, shell

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2017-02-18 18:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Iglesia de San Bartolomé de Tirajana, Gran Canaria, altar of James the Greater
  •   Support, useful and best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 22:15, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
DeFacto (talk). on 2017-02-18 20:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Townsend House privy at the Avoncroft Museum of Historic Buildings - front
Used in:
en:Avoncroft Museum of Historic Buildings

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
DeFacto (talk). on 2017-02-18 20:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Townsend House privy at the Avoncroft Museum of Historic Buildings - inside
Used in:
en:Avoncroft Museum of Historic Buildings, en:Toilet

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

  •   Question Mmmm. Should the scope say unoccupied??? Charles (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • To allow a scope for each permutation of occupancy?   DeFacto (talk). 18:23, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. You need to do the business. You missed an opporunity for a selfie! Charles (talk) 23:04, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
--Pierre André (talk) 21:23, 18 February 2017 (UTC) on 2017-02-18 21:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Yoni and Lingam, and Brahma sculpture in Kbal Spean
  Comment Yes, I think; the description given is a "Yoni", see File:Quincunxlingakbalspean01.JPG. The file you are proposing is a "Lingua".- Maybe I should change the scop? Best regards.--Pierre André (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
So the description of the other picture is wrong? IMO, this is Brahma, not Vishnu. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I corrected this error, best regard. --Pierre André (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand what you corrected. The descriptions are still different. And I am not convinced this is Vishnu. The sculpture has 3 heads, which is a characteristic of Brahma. And while the square represents the yoni, the circle represents the lingam. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
You are right! This is the sculpture of the creator god Brahma, not Vishnu. I confused the Hindu mythological symbols carved in the river bed. Well of course I corrected my mistakes.   Thank you --Pierre André (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Then you need to change the scope. I think Yoni and Lingam, and Brahma sculpture in Kbal Spean would be OK.
  Done mofification, thank you for your advice. Regard.--Pierre André (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 20:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Yann (talk) on 2017-02-18 21:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Yellowcake
  •   Support - Best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment scope is too broad - see description on File:Uranium conversion 2.jpg. Charles (talk) 10:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
    • According to the source, this is "Yellowcake", so why is it not appropriate for the scope of "Yellowcake"? Regards, Yann (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It may be, but I assumed from File:Uranium conversion 2.jpg that yellowcake covered many different compounds. Perhaps they all look the same. I'm not opposing, just checking we have best scope. Charles (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
  • It does contain different compounds, as per w:Yellowcake: "Typically, yellowcakes are obtained through the milling and chemical processing of uranium ore forming a coarse powder that has a pungent odor, is insoluble in water, and contains about 80% uranium oxide[...]The compounds identified in yellowcakes include uranyl hydroxide, uranyl sulfate, sodium para-uranate, and uranyl peroxide, along with various uranium oxides. Modern yellowcake typically contains 70% to 90% triuranium octoxide (U3O8) by weight." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
DeFacto (talk). on 2017-02-18 22:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Raleigh lady's loop frame bicycle - 1930s
Used in:
en:Highland Folk Museum, en:Raleigh Bicycle Company

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-02-18 22:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Fence church with gatehouses in Gorzanów, western gatehouse
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-02-18 22:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Mary Magdalene church in Gorzanów, crucifix

  Support Useful --Llez (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-02-18 23:07 (UTC)
Scope:
St. George church in Długopole Dolne, crucifix
  •   Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 15:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-02-18 23:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Chapel of St. Anthony of Padua in Gorzanów, statue of Onuphrius

  Support BEst in scope --Llez (talk) 06:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-02-18 23:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Interior of church of the Assumption in Nowa Bystrzyca, sacristy

  Support Useful --Llez (talk) 06:41, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2017-02-19 06:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Fuchsia 'Götenborg'. Flowers.

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2017-02-19 06:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Peio View Peio Paese.
  •   Comment - My difficulty is that there are dozens of images in that category and some are quite different from one another, so it's hard for me to know how to pick a best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:37, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Question - But are most of them of trips to or from Peio? Is Peio just the village depicted in this view? If so, the scope becomes much more manageable for VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Answer: the village what you see on the mountainside called Peio Paese. My husband and I walked on the mountainside across from Peio Paese. That mountain trail to take the picture.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-02-19 10:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Ceryle rudis rudis (Pied kingfisher) female

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-02-19 10:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Ceryle rudis rudis (Pied kingfisher) diving

  Support Very didactic --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-02-19 10:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Ceryle rudis rudis (Pied kingfisher) eating fish

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:08, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-02-19 15:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Manduca ochus mounted specimen male dorsal

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-02-19 15:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Santa Giustina (Padua) - Chapel of St. Gregory the Great Altar in polychrome stones in the style of the Corbarelli family

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-02-19 15:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Prayer in the Garden by Marco Basaiti, Gallerie dell'Accademia in Venice

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
--Pierre André (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC) on 2017-02-19 17:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Prasat Yeah Puon Cambodia
Used in:
Global usage
  •   Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
DeFacto (talk). on 2017-02-19 18:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Yarningale Aqueduct showing the iron trough and the towpath iron railings from the north
Used in:
en:Yarningale Aqueduct

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
DeFacto (talk). on 2017-02-19 18:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Yarningale Aqueduct showing the canal and towpath going over it from the north
Used in:
en:Stratford-upon-Avon Canal, en:Avon Ring, en:Yarningale Aqueduct

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Yann (talk) on 2017-02-19 18:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Aung San Suu Kyi, portrait photograph
Reason:
Nobel Peace Prize. The best image, with geolocation. Used in many projects. -- Yann (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Yann (talk) on 2017-02-19 18:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Theresa May, portrait photograph
Reason:
UK Prime Minister. Best image, much better quality than her official portrait. Studio shot, so not geocoded. Used on many projects. -- Yann (talk)

  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
--Pierre André (talk) 20:51, 19 February 2017 (UTC) on 2017-02-19 20:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Prasat Boram Cambodia.
Used in:
Global usage
  •   Support Best in scope, but it would even be better if you have a version without the branches in the front. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
    •   Comment Alas, this is my only version.- thank you for your advice. Regards,--Pierre André (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
George Ho (talk) on 2017-02-20 00:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Kelsey Grammer
Reason:
I contacted Tenebrae (the uploader) about choosing either this (original) version or the cropped version. I was recommended the original, so I'm nominating this one. This image has a lot of value and is the cleanest of all photos of this person. -- George Ho (talk)
  •   Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
DAJF (talk) on 2017-02-20 02:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Tobu 8000 series in green and white livery
Used in:
Global usage

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
DAJF (talk) on 2017-02-20 02:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Tobu 8000 series in "Flying Tojo" blue and yellow livery
Used in:
Global usage

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
grendel|khan on 2017-02-20 05:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Meleagris gallopavo in flight, rear view

  Oppose I don't see this as valuable. Charles (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2017-02-20 08:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Helleborus argutifolius (Corsican hellebore), fruits and seeds, dried specimen

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
--Pierre André (talk) 11:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC) on 2017-02-20 11:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Spean preah Toeûs bridge (Cambodia)
Used in:
Global usage
  •   Support - I believe this is best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-02-20 09:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Lagonosticta senegala senegala (Red-billed firefinch) male

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:07, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.

}}

 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-02-20 11:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Lagonosticta senegala senegala (Red-billed firefinch) female

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-02-20 11:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Lagonosticta senegala senegala (Red-billed firefinch) pair: male (l) female (r)

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Masum-al-Hasan (talk) on 2017-02-20 07:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Muhammad Azam Shah
  •   Support Best in scope. Yann (talk) 17:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Milseburg (talk) on 2017-02-20 13:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Panoramics from Milseburg
Used in:
de:Milseburg
Reason:
Best in scope -- Milseburg (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-02-20 16:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Manduca ochus mounted specimen male ventral

  Support Useful --Llez (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-02-20 16:25 (UTC)
Scope:
San Lio (Venice) - Gussoni chapel - Relief of Lamentation of Christ by Tullio Lombardo

  Support Useful --Llez (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-02-20 16:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Pope Gregory I who invokes the Virgin for the end of the plague in Rome by Sebastiano Ricci

  Support Best in scope --Llez (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Horadrim (talk) on 2017-02-20 16:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Canis lupus familiaris (dog) kidney system, after technique of formalin fixation.
Used in:
MS; PT; EN

  Comment In caption: either in the title or in the description the name of the species in binomial must appear. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:12, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2017-02-20 18:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Anaïs Fargueil, Portrait photograph
Used in:
articles about her, like Anaïs Fargueil
Reason:
Again time for ladies. Alone in scope for a photograph. A gift for User:Archaeodontosaurus, this is a Toulouse-born actress, who was famous in the Théâtre du Vaudeville in the second part of the 19th-century. No geocode, it is a studio shot, restored by me. In use of course. -- Jebulon (talk)
  •   Support Best in scope. Je pense que tu pourrais éclaircir le fond et le visage. On dirait qu'elle a la jaunisse. ;oP Yann (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Elle A la jaunisse !.--Jebulon (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
    • Elle va mieux aujourd'hui.--Jebulon (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2017-02-20 18:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Carinapex minutissima, shell

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Yann (talk) on 2017-02-20 18:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Kitty O'Brien Joyner
  •   Info Geocoded to NASA Langley Research Center. Yann (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Lucas.Belo (talk) on 2017-02-20 19:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Capra hircus (goat) scrotal sac after technique of formalin fixation.
Used in:
EN; PT
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Lucas.Belo (talk) on 2017-02-20 19:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Bos taurus (ox) testis after technique of formalin fixation.
Used in:
EN; PT
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Yann (talk) on 2017-02-20 21:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Family tree for the Rougon-Macquart,

  Info Les Rougon-Macquart is a cycle of twenty novels by French writer Émile Zola. Yann (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-02-20 21:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Honda HR-V (GH3/GH4), GH3, side view
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-02-20 21:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Chapel in Jerzykowice Małe, exposure from W

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-02-20 22:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Chapel in Jerzykowice Małe, altar

  Support Useful - Damage that is not used. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:19, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-02-20 22:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Smog in Poland, over Nowa Ruda
  •   Support - Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2017-02-20 22:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint Anne church in Nowa Ruda, exposure from SW
  •   Support Usefull --Ercé (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
grendel|khan on 2017-02-20 22:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Meleagris gallopavo (Wild turkey) in flight, side view

  Support useful, I have added English name which is needed, as binomial needs to be in itlaics so I've done that. Charles (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2017-02-21 06:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Lago di Pian Palù House by the dam wall.
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Wolfgang Moroder (talk) on 2017-02-21 07:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Column of the Lion in Piazzetta San Marco (Venice), bronze lion

  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:53, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2017-02-21 07:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Butia capitata (jelly palm), seeds, dried specimen
  •   Support - Good and useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:44, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-02-21 10:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Hirundo leucosoma (Pied-winged swallow)
  •   Support - Best in scope by a country mile. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-02-21 10:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Uraeginthus bengalus bengalus (Red-cheeked cordon-bleu) male

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2017-02-21 10:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Uraeginthus bengalus bengalus (Red-cheeked cordon-bleu) female

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

Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Berthold Werner (talk) on 2017-02-21 14:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Ford Eifel, front view
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Berthold Werner (talk) on 2017-02-21 14:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Ford Eifel, rear view
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-02-21 15:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Clanis bilineata mounted specimen female ventral
  •   Best in Scope17:16, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-02-21 15:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Rio Madonna dell'Orto (Venice). View from ponte Madonna dell'Orto East exposure
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2017-02-21 15:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Madonna dell'Orto (Venice) - Chapel Contarini - Monument to Alvise Contarini (1597-1651)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2017-02-21 18:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Wayside cross, so-called "Laschkreuz" (1579) in Wißmannsdorf, Germany
Used in:
de:Liste der Kulturdenkmäler in Wißmannsdorf
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.

Che Guevara Mausoleum from west-east viewEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
~ Moheen (talk) on 2016-05-06 07:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Che Guevara Mausoleum from west-east view
Used in:
See Global Usage
  •   Oppose Sorry, several and serious perspective issues, none vertical line are vertical --Ezarateesteban 23:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

  Comment these types of technical issues @Ezarate: are not usually reason to oppose a VI nomination. Charles (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

  Comment The perspective issues affect the VIC guideline #3: Must illustrate its subject well. The subject isn't well ilustrated. Thanks for your opinion Charles Ezarateesteban 15:43, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

  •   Done Perspective has been set. Wish it will be batter. ~ Moheen (talk) 17:45, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Support It was more easy than I think, useful now --Ezarateesteban 22:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  •   Oppose in favor of the alternative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 19:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Kaldari (talk) on 2017-02-03 03:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Che Guevara Mausoleum from west-east view
Reason:
Image shows more of the monument and is higher resolution. -- Kaldari (talk)
  •   Support as best in scope per nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment, I think the perspective needs correction, as was done for the other candidate in this MVR. DeFacto (talk). 07:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
    • @DeFacto: This is a huge monument, so I think eliminating the effects of perspective completely would look a bit artificial. I've reduced the perspective tilt some, per your suggestion, however. Hopefully it's an improvement. Kaldari (talk) 03:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
  • @Kaldari: I'd prefer the verticals to be more vertical (as in the other candidate in this MVR) but will wait to see if anyone else has an opinion on this. DeFacto (talk). 07:28, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

  Question What is "west-east view"? "view from west"? --Berthold Werner (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Kaldari, Moheen, anyone have an answer? It's a good question. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Comment View from the west corner. ~ Moheen (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 19:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Ted DansonEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
George Ho (talk) on 2017-02-14 10:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Ted Danson
Used in:
w:Ted Danson
Reason:
Kinda more recent, but at least this image is decent. -- George Ho (talk)
  •   Support - Not very sharp, but best in scope by default. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Best in scope. --Yann (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 19:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
George Ho (talk) on 2017-02-14 10:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Ted Danson
Used in:
w:Ted Danson
Reason:
This photo was taken at the 1990 Emmy Awards pre-ceremony carpet. One of historical images. -- George Ho (talk)
  •   Oppose - A sharper picture than the other one, but needs to be digitally restored: The white spots are very distracting and disconcerting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 19:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Cloris LeachmanEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
George Ho (talk) on 2017-02-14 11:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Cloris Leachman
Used in:
fr:Cloris Leachman
Reason:
She has a good ponytail hairstyle and good pose. -- George Ho (talk)
  •   Support - Seems like the best photo in scope to me, partly because of the careful light control in the studio. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
  •   Support Best in scope. --Yann (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 19:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
George Ho (talk) on 2017-02-14 18:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Cloris Leachman
Reason:
Although greyscale, she looked younger in this photo -- George Ho (talk)
  •   Support I think this should be a VI out of the photos in the category for now.--MrPanyGoff 20:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. ClorisLeachmanJune09.jpg: +0
2. Cloris Leachman Phyllis 1974.JPG: +1 
=>
File:ClorisLeachmanJune09.jpg: Declined.
File:Cloris Leachman Phyllis 1974.JPG: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 08:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
  •   Oppose - Good alternative, but there are some very bright areas in this photo and she's in shadow. Those really bright flowers can be a distraction. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 19:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Neil Patrick HarrisEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
George Ho (talk) on 2017-02-20 09:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Neil Patrick Harris
Scores: 
1. 5.3.10NeilPatrickHarrisByDavidShankbone.jpg: +0
2. Neil Patrick Harris 2008.jpg: +0 
3. NeilPatrickHarrisHWOFSept2011.jpg: +0 
=>
File:5.3.10NeilPatrickHarrisByDavidShankbone.jpg: Undecided.
File:Neil Patrick Harris 2008.jpg: Undecided.
File:NeilPatrickHarrisHWOFSept2011.jpg: Undecided.
--MrPanyGoff 08:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
George Ho (talk) on 2017-02-20 10:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Neil Patrick Harris
  • Not geocoded. cmadler (talk) 17:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
    •   Info Geocoding now added. --George Ho (talk) 01:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
Scores: 
1. 5.3.10NeilPatrickHarrisByDavidShankbone.jpg: +0
2. Neil Patrick Harris 2008.jpg: +0 
3. NeilPatrickHarrisHWOFSept2011.jpg: +0 
=>
File:5.3.10NeilPatrickHarrisByDavidShankbone.jpg: Undecided.
File:Neil Patrick Harris 2008.jpg: Undecided.
File:NeilPatrickHarrisHWOFSept2011.jpg: Undecided.
--MrPanyGoff 08:02, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
George Ho (talk) on 2017-02-20 09:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Neil Patrick Harris
Reason:
Cropped but much better than version of File:NeilPatrickHarrisHWOFSept2011.jpg, which was previously nominated as VI. -- George Ho (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
George Ho (talk) on 2017-02-20 09:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Neil Patrick Harris at the 2013 Comic Con
Reason:
Taken at 2013 Comic Con. Nice smile and pose. -- George Ho (talk)
  •   Question - Why are none of these pictures in Category:Neil Patrick Harris, and how are we supposed to figure out which picture is best in scope if we have to wade through a bunch of "Neil Patrick Harris by year" subcategories? It seems like this category has somehow gotten messed up, but I don't know how. It should be unmessed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Fixed it, Ikan. --George Ho (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Unfortunately, now I feel like there are so many photos, I can't look through all of them and decide which is best in scope. Should I restrict myself to judging just these three photos? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Hmm... shall I split three nominations into individually scoped nominations then? I'll split the scope into three yearly scopes. --George Ho (talk) 08:38, 17 February 2017 (UTC) Pinging Ikan. 08:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I tend not to think so. I don't think he will be recognizably different in consecutive years. Someone will probably take the time to look through all of the photos and determine to their satisfaction which is most useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
┌──────┘
You can, Ikan, either limit to just three photos or nominate the fourth photo yourself. There is File:Neil Patrick Harris - Streamy Awards 2009 (2).jpg, but it has too much lighting. --George Ho (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I reviewed other pictures, but they do not come close to the three. There are other Comic Con 2013 photos of this guy, but I would rather pick something less silly and more... how do you call it? --George Ho (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
I think you can vote more than one photo of the same scope if you can. --George Ho (talk) 22:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Ikan Kekek: I have an idea. What if I can narrow the scope of this nomination to just "Neil Patrick Harris at the 2013 Comic Con"? Would this work? --George Ho (talk) 09:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think you could. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I narrowed down the scope and then reset the nomination time. --George Ho (talk) 09:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Also, Ikan, I split the nomination away from the "Most Valued review candidates" section and put it into another section. --George Ho (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  Comment Remember he was a noted child actor too. Charles (talk) 09:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Alright, I actually looked through all the photos in this more limited category. It's pretty nearly a tossup between this photo and File:Neil Patrick Harris (9448294366).jpg. The positives pretty nearly cancel themselves out. The bit of a finger in this one could disconcert someone, perhaps, whereas in the other, his head is leaning to the side. I'll say what the hell and   Support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

  Oppose I don't think we want VIs of people at every location they've ever attended unless it was significant, in which case it should be in scope i.e. getting an Oscar; collecting an honour/medal; getting married etc. (was this?). See current MVR below. Charles (talk) 11:40, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Charlesjsharp, Ikan Kekek: Somehow, the nomination was removed from the "New valued image nominations" section. I re-broadened the scope to reflect the removal and then reinserted the nomination back to MVR. --George Ho (talk) 19:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.

Altscheid Wayside Cross (1801)Edit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2016-12-14 17:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Wayside cross (1801) in Altscheid, Germany.

  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Can anyone answer my question? I would vote for that file as best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 19:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2017-02-14 17:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Wayside cross (1801) in Altscheid, Germany.
Reason:
New shot, better lighting. -- Palauenc05 (talk)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 19:07, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Rupert MurdochEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
George Ho (talk) on 2017-02-17 19:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Rupert Murdoch

  Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Scores: 
1. Rupert Murdoch - WEF Davos 2007.jpg: +0
2. Murdoch at World Economic Forum 2009.jpg: +1 
=>
File:Rupert Murdoch - WEF Davos 2007.jpg: Declined.
File:Murdoch at World Economic Forum 2009.jpg: Promoted.
--MrPanyGoff 09:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
  •   Support - In my opinion, this remains a better picture than the other one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
George Ho (talk) on 2017-02-17 19:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Rupert Murdoch
Reason:
Back when I nominated another photo, I didn't consider this photo. However, I think this photo may have more value as it's more widely used. Also, it indicates that time passes by. -- George Ho (talk)
  •   Oppose - I may be too influenced by the quality of the other photo at full size, but his skin seems a bit bleached in this photo, by comparison. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.

Chanda KochharEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Yann (talk) on 2017-02-19 20:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Chanda Kochhar, portrait photograph
Reason:
Indian banker and businesswoman, listed by Fortune, as one of the most powerful women in the world. -- Yann (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Yann (talk) on 2017-02-20 01:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Chanda Kochhar, portrait photograph
  •   Support - I like her animated expression. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Open for review.

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