Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

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. -- ~~~~
  • Pictogram voting info.svg  Info My information. -- Example
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
30,581 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
27,088 (88.6%) 
Undecided
  
1,570 (5.1%) 
Declined
  
1,923 (6.3%) 



New valued image nominationsEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-17 12:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Cinnyris fuscus (Dusky sunbird) male drinking

Previous reviews

  •    Support - Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 15:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-21 15:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Python anchietae (Angolan python) head
Open for review.
 
View promotion
Nominated by:
Christian Ferrer (talk) on 2018-04-22 05:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Amaranth (ship, 1980)
Reason:
Used, only one in scope -- Christian Ferrer (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Olivier LPB (talk) 09:19, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2018-04-22 05:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Alectoris chukar chukar eggs
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 15:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2018-04-22 10:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Commemorative plaque for Fischers Maathes at his birth place in Trier (Germany).
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 15:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Martin Falbisoner (talk) on 2018-04-22 11:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Kranhaus, Rheinauhafen Cologne: panorama including Cologne Cathedral as seen from S by night
Used in:
en:Kranhaus
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 15:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-22 12:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Nesciothemis farinosa (Eastern blacktail) female, lateral view
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 15:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-22 12:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Nesciothemis farinosa (Eastern blacktail) female, dorsal
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 15:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-22 12:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Orthetrum julia falsum (Julia skimmer) female, lateral view
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 15:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2018-04-22 15:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Chapel of St. Jost (Langenfeld), view from southeast
Used in:
de:St. Jost (Langenfeld)

  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 15:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-04-22 21:33 (UTC)
Scope:
St John's House, Liverpool
Used in:
Grade II listed buildings in Liverpool-L1
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-23 05:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Agrius cingulata Mounted specimen male dorsal
  •    Support Usefull --Ercé (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-23 05:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Presentation of Jesus Christ at the Temple by Francesco Zugno in San Giacomo dall'Orio (Venice)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-23 05:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Juliette by Thomas Couture Musée des Augustins, de Toulouse
  •    Support - Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:51, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  •    Support Ah mon ami ! Ton Thomas Couture (que j'ai portraituré récemment, d'ailleurs, dans ma série des bonshommes de Nadar) a commencé par se prendre pour Henri de... (quelque chose, "Toulouse-Lautrec" je suppose ?). J'ai corrigé cette petite distraction bien dans ta manière !  --Jebulon (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2018-04-23 05:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Alectoris rufa hybrid A. rufa x A. Graeca, eggs

  

Support Useful --Llez (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-23 08:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Syncerus caffer caffer (African buffalo) male
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-23 08:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Mungos mungo (Banded mongoose)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-23 08:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Mungos mungo (Banded mongoose) head
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2018-04-23 14:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Caecum gracile, shell
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-04-23 14:25 (UTC)
Scope:
College of Technology and museum extension, Liverpool - Byrom Street facade
Used in:
See global usage
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexandar Vujadinovic (talk) on 2018-04-23 21:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Aerial views of Johanneshov
Used in:
Stockholm Globe City, Ericsson Globe, Tele2 Arena
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-24 05:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Agrius cingulata Mounted specimen male ventral

  

Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-24 05:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Immaculate with Saint Anne, Saint Joachim, Saint Anthony of Padua, Saint Joseph and Saint Francis of Sales by Giovanni Battista Cromer in San Giacomo dall'Orio (Venice)

  

Support Useful --Llez (talk) 11:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-24 05:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Autumn by Alexandre Falguière
  •    Support - Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-04-24 15:40 (UTC)
Scope:
135 - 139 Dale Street, Liverpool - Dale Street facade
Used in:
Grade II listed buildings in Liverpool-L2
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2018-04-24 16:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Hippolyte Babou portrait photograph.
Used in:
wikidata
Reason:
Had articles, but no illustrations in "Commons". New category, new character of a writer and critics, completely forgotten now (He suggested the title "Les Fleurs du Mal" to Beaudelaire, a friend of him, for his poems). Therefore valuable I think. No geocode for this studio shot. Uploaded and restored by me. Original by Nadar available as first upload. In use of course. -- Jebulon (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2018-04-24 16:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Caecum maori, shell
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2018-04-24 16:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Welschnonnenkirche (Trier), view NW.
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-24 14:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Aepyceros melampus petersi (Black-faced impala) female
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-24 14:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Aepyceros melampus petersi (Black-faced impala) female head (composite)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-24 16:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Connochaetes taurinus taurinus (Blue wildebeest) female and calf
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2018-04-24 20:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Wayside cross [17]68 in Stockem (Germany)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2018-04-24 20:45 (UTC)
Scope:
"St. Hubertus" church in Stockem (Germany) (view NE).
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on Haus Venedig Portal.jpg
Scope:
Portal of "Haus Venedig" (Trier)
  •    Support Useful and the only one in scope -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 11:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review. Expression error: Unexpected < operator.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-25 04:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Macroglossum nubilum Mounted specimen male dorsal

  

Support useful, but gallery should show male. Charles (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-25 04:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Rue Cujas (Toulouse) - viewed from Rue Peyrolières
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-25 04:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Psyche by Pierre-Bernard Prouha
  •    Support - Useful, but a question: If you're creating a false background, isn't it advisable not to have some of it be brighter than the rest? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
  •    CommentD’une façon général les taches donnent du relief aux statues. La place de la tâche et la couleur ne sont pas choisies au hasard, mais imposé par les jeux de lumières. Cette pièce s'appelle le salon rouge et les murs sont recouvert de tissu de cette couleur. Les statues ont des reflets rouges sur certains bords. La tache les rend acceptable pour l'œil. In a general way the spots give relief to the statues. The place of the spot and the color are not chosen at random, but imposed by the play of lights. This room is called the red room and the walls are covered with fabrics of this color. The statues have red highlights on some edges. The spot makes them acceptable to the eye. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
-- DeFacto (talk). on 2018-04-25 06:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Water-powered engine house and weir at Warwick Castle
Used in:
en:Warwick Castle, en:Hydroelectricity
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Masum-al-Hasan (talk) on 2018-04-25 07:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Members of George Washington's family with muslin
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Masum-al-Hasan (talk) on 2018-04-25 07:17 (UTC)
Scope:
An Indian Girl with a Hookah, painted in Dhaka, Bengal Presidency
  •    Question - In this case, the painting is apparently called "Lady in Muslin", so why the different scope this time? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:58, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2018-04-25 09:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Antony Deschamps portrait photograph
Used in:
wikidata and others
Reason:
Another new character, a poet, another "blind" article now illustrated. Alone in scope. Original by Nadar available as first upload, restored by me. No geocode for a studio shot. In use of course. -- Jebulon (talk)
  •    Support - Useful, and that looks like a difficult restoration. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2018-04-25 11:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Hartmannswillerkopf World War I cemetery, memorial
Used in:
de:Hartmannswillerkopf, en:Hartmannswillerkopf, en:World War I Memorials and Cemeteries in Alsace, fr:Wattwiller, io:Hartmannswillerkopf, nl:Hartmannswillerkopf, sv:Wattwiller
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-25 07:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Connochaetes taurinus taurinus (Blue wildebeest) calf
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-25 11:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Equus quagga burchellii (Burchell's zebra) head
  •    Comment - It looks like there are subcategories of this kind of zebra in x or y park, making them not viewable in the parent category. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-25 11:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Giraffa camelopardalis angolensis (Angolan giraffe) female head (profile)
Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2018-04-25 16:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Auguste Nicolas Gendrin portrait photograph
Used in:
fr:Auguste Nicolas Gendrin
Reason:
Best in scope IMO. Difficult restoration of an original by Nadar, representing a famous physician from France. I uploaded first one photo by Nadar, but found this one after, which is better IMO. No geocode for a studio shot. In use of course. -- Jebulon (talk)

  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2018-04-25 17:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Caecum atlantidis, shell
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Coffeeandcrumbs (talk) on 2018-04-25 18:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Photos from March for Our Lives
Used in:
March for Our Lives#Participation
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-26 05:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Macroglossum nubilum Mounted specimen male ventral

  

Comment useful as was the earlier nom, but gallery should show male. Charles (talk) 07:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-26 05:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Allegory of Faith by Paolo Veronese in San Giacomo dall'Orio (Venice)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-26 05:04 (UTC)
Scope:
The last Dryad by Henri de Gabriel Guay Musée des Augustins, de Toulouse
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2018-04-26 06:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Perdix perdix eggs
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-26 07:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Phacochoerus africanus sundevallii (Common warthog) female with young
Reason:
parent and other categories checked. -- Charles (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-26 07:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Phacochoerus africanus sundevallii (Common warthog) female
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-26 07:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Phacochoerus africanus sundevallii (Common warthogs) suckling
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2018-04-26 10:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Paulus portrait photograph
Used in:
fr:Paulus (chanteur)
Reason:
I am fascinated by the technical quality of this 19th-century portrait. Paulus was a very famous vocalist/singer of Caf'conç. No geocode for this studio shot by Nadar, restored by me. Restoration was not technicaly difficult, but very delicate. It is in use of course. -- Jebulon (talk)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-04-26 11:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Main Bridewell, Liverpool
Used in:
Grade II* listed buildings in Liverpool - City Centre
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Voltmetro on 2018-04-26 12:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Maria Astashkina at the 2018 Russian National Championships
Used in:
ru:Асташкина, Мария Алексеевна
Reason:
This image is only which shows the face of this person, although any other image in this scope are better quality. Therefore, I nominate this picture to VI. -- Voltmetro
  •    Comment : if you oppose please see another images in the scope. Maybe some of them would be better to VI in your opinion. Thank you. Voltmetro 12:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Voltmetro on 2018-04-26 12:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Danila Izotov at the 2018 Russian National Championships
Used in:
en:Danila Izotov, ru:Изотов, Данила Сергеевич, fr:Danila Izotov, it:Danila Izotov, uk:Ізотов Данило Сергійович
Reason:
This is an only photo of silver and bronze Olympic medalist from Russia -- Voltmetro

  

Question Hi, thanks for sharing these pictures of champions. I think you should increase the quality of this one, especially the chromatic aberration on his right arm. Do you think you could ? I know that "high quality" is not the purpose in VI, but you have a minimum bar to respect (criterium 3)--Jebulon (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Voltmetro on 2018-04-26 13:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Kliment Kolesnikov at the 2018 Russian National Championships
Used in:
en:Kliment Kolesnikov, fr:Kliment Kolesnikov, no:Kliment Kolesnikov, ru:Колесников, Климент Андреевич, he:קלימנט קולסניקוב
Reason:
The only photo of this swimmer -- Voltmetro
Open for review.
 
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2018-04-26 15:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Léon de Tinseau portrait photograph
Used in:
wikidata

Alone in scope, we only had a picture of...his grave. No geocode for this wonderful portrait of this writer, by Nadar, restored by me, as it is a studio shot. Original available as first upload. In use of course.--Jebulon (talk) 15:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

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.

Lenbachhaus: Foster extension, worm's-eye viewEdit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Martin Falbisoner (talk) on 2018-03-31 10:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Lenbachhaus: Foster extension, worm's-eye view
Used in:
de:Städtische Galerie im Lenbachhaus
Reason:
only image in scope -- Martin Falbisoner (talk)
  •    Support Nice picture, used. Voltmetro 14:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  •    Comment But I'm not sure this justifies a scope. Charles (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 15:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Martin Falbisoner (talk) on 2018-04-16 06:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Lenbachhaus: Foster extension, worm's-eye view
Used in:
de:Städtische Galerie im Lenbachhaus
Reason:
The ongoing discussion at FPC made clear that this alternative (which is also likely to be promoted to FP has been promoted to FP) is the superior and thus also more valuable image. -- Martin Falbisoner (talk)

  

Support better Christian Ferrer (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 15:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Canis mesomelas mesomelas (Black-backed jackal)Edit

   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lycaon (talk) on 2009-01-23 16:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Canis mesomelas (Black-backed Jackal)
Used in:
ar:ابن آوى أسود الظهر, bg:Черногръб чакал, da:Skaberaksjakal, de:Schabrackenschakal, en:Black-backed Jackal, en:Canis, es:Canis mesomelas, fi:Koirat, fr:Chacal à chabraque, gl:Chacal, he:תן שחור, hu:Panyókás sakál, io:Shakalo, it:Canis mesomelas, ja:セグロジャッカル, ko:검은등자칼, ko:자칼, la:Thos, lt:Juodnugaris šakalas, nl:Roofdieren, nl:Zadeljakhals, pl:Canini, pl:Szakal czaprakowy, pt:Chacal-de-dorso-negro, ru:Чепрачный шакал, species:Canis mesomelas, sv:Schabrakschakal, tr:Kara sırtlı çakal, tr:Namib Çölü, uk:Чепрачний шакал, zh:黑背胡狼
  •    Support Best pic in the cat, criteria fulfilled. --Eusebius (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 15:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 
View (withdrawn)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-17 16:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Canis mesomelas mesomelas (Black-backed jackal)
  •    Support clearly better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  •    Oppose I disagree. Technical quality at 100% zoom is certainly better, but that does not matter at the 480px review size. I don't see what would make this one better from a VI point of view. The fur at the back looks unusually messy as if s/he's just come out of a fight. The paws are not visible in this one. --El Grafo (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

  

I withdraw my nomination
Can be closed as declined
   
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lycaon (talk) on 2009-01-23 16:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Canis mesomelas (Black-backed Jackal)
Used in:
ar:ابن آوى أسود الظهر, bg:Черногръб чакал, da:Skaberaksjakal, de:Schabrackenschakal, en:Black-backed Jackal, en:Canis, es:Canis mesomelas, fi:Koirat, fr:Chacal à chabraque, gl:Chacal, he:תן שחור, hu:Panyókás sakál, io:Shakalo, it:Canis mesomelas, ja:セグロジャッカル, ko:검은등자칼, ko:자칼, la:Thos, lt:Juodnugaris šakalas, nl:Roofdieren, nl:Zadeljakhals, pl:Canini, pl:Szakal czaprakowy, pt:Chacal-de-dorso-negro, ru:Чепрачный шакал, species:Canis mesomelas, sv:Schabrakschakal, tr:Kara sırtlı çakal, tr:Namib Çölü, uk:Чепрачний шакал, zh:黑背胡狼
  •    Support Best pic in the cat, criteria fulfilled. --Eusebius (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 15:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-25 08:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Canis mesomelas mesomelas (Black-backed jackal)

  

Support I think this one is better, even if both are nice.--Jebulon (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2018 (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