Commons:Valued image candidates
|
This project page in other languages:
|
 Skip to image nominations |
Skip to most valued reviews |
Skip to set nominations |
 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, and image sets for valued image set (VIS) 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 or set 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 or set which already has VI status, please open an MVR. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
[edit] How to nominate an image or a set of images for VI statusNominations 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.
[edit] Adding a new nomination (image)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:
so that it looks like this
{{VICs
...
|My-image-filename.jpg
}}
and save the candidate list. [edit] Adding a new nomination (set)Step 1: Choose a set name, and type that into this box after the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Valued image candidates/Mysetname. Then click on the "Create new set nomination" button. Step 2: Follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save the resulting VISC subpage. Step 3: Open Commons:Valued image candidates/Set candidate list Click here, and add your set at at the bottom of the page using this format:
{{Commons:Valued image candidates/A vulca......
{{Commons:Valued image candidates/Mysetname}}
and save the set candidate list. [edit] RenominationDeclined VICs and VISCs 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 and VISCs 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 and VISCs 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.
|review=
{{subst:VIC-archive}}
}}
Step 6: Add the candidate to the candidates list. [edit] How to open a Most Valued ReviewThere 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. 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. Each candidate should have its status parameter set to discussed, while the MVR is ongoing. [edit] How to review the candidates[edit] How to review an image or a set of imagesAny registered user can review the valued image candidates and the valued image set 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. [edit] Review procedure
[edit] Changes in scope during the review periodThe 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. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Neutral Reason for neutral vote. -- 
Oppose Reason for opposing vote. -- [edit] Pending valued image candidates
| 4651 closed valued image candidates | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Closed as | Nominations | |||
| Promoted | 3223 (69.3%) | |||
| Undecided | 489 (10.5%) | |||
| Declined | 939 (20.2%) | |||
[edit] New valued image nominations
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
[edit] Closed valued image candidates
[edit] Most valued review
[edit] Bow visors
|
|
[edit] Auschwitz I concentration camp
|
|
Done (not sure if I got it all right; it's the first I've opened). 
[edit] Closed Most Valued Reviews
[edit] Pending valued image set candidates
[edit] New valued image set nominations
|
| Review Page () |
| Nominated by: Wolfgang Moroder (talk) on 2012-01-17 07:28 (UTC) |
| Description: A couple of angels woodcarved by Jakob Crepaz-Maidl |
| VISC of: Couple of polychromed, wood carved altar angels by the sculptor Jakob Crepaz-Maidl |
* Comment If we let the scope written like that, its means that these two statues are the most weather applications of this sculptor. No other works to the same sculptor will have a label. I suggest to focus the scope on the title of the work and the name of the author. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 20:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
| Review Page () |
| Nominated by: Wolfgang Moroder (talk) on 2012-01-22 22:50 (UTC) |
| Description: Baroque sculptures; otherwise difficult to take a picture of due to the narrow street in which the church is located. |
| VISC of: The Atlantes by Josse de Corte in the church Chiesa dell'Ospedaletto in Venice |
 Support Set very interesting, I certify the difficulty of the photographic work of a church that I know well. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC) |
| Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 20:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
| Review it! () |
| Nominated by: Wolfgang Moroder (talk) on 2012-01-26 11:46 (UTC) |
| Description: Statues by Giovanni Maria Morlaiter inside the Gesuati Church in Venice - photography in the church is allowed only without flash and without tripod. |
| VISC of: Statues in the Gesuati church in Venice |
 Info I have uploaded new versions of better cropped images. Unfortunately the file King Melchizedek does not refresh. --Wolfgang Moroder (talk) 10:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Info Done some more corrections of barrel shape on S. Peter and S. Paul |
| Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 20:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
| Review Page () |
| Nominated by: Codrin.B (talk) on 2012-01-26 21:40 (UTC) |
| Description: Some of the best images of Dacian bracelets. |
| VISC of: Dacian bracelets |
| CommentGood Topic. Some images seem redundant. It would be good to restrict the panel.
--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
|
| Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 20:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
| Review Page () |
| Nominated by: Norbert Nagel (talk) on 2012-01-27 23:28 (UTC) |
| Description: The labour camp Walldorf / Airport Frankfurt was a satellite camp of the concentration camp Natzweiler-Struthof in Alsace and existed in the period from August to December, 1944.
The imprisoned Hungarian Jewish women came directly from Auschwitz-Birkenau and narrowly escaped the selection of Dr. Josef Mengele. The arrested 1700 young girls and women aged 13 to 28 years were requested by the Organization Todt at the Reich Security Main Office and had to perform forced labor at a construction site of the company Züblin at the Frankfurt Airport. About 50 women didn't survive this time period of about 4 months. From the remaining women, only about 300 survived further deportation and the holocaust. After the war, forgotten or repressed, the camp was blown up and the area reforested again. In the 1970s, the camp was rediscovered and a memorial stone was inaugurated. From the year 1996 on, there was a continuous and lively analysis of the history of the outpost camp. In the year 2000, attended by 19 survivors, a memorial path was opened in the forest: On several plates the history of the camp and the women imprisoned are described with their individual fates. In addition, a cellar under the former kitchen barrack was excavated, in which prisoners were beaten to death. The Margit-Horváth-Foundation was founded. Margaret Horváth was one of the survivors of this camp. Her son gave his mothers so-called compensation money to the foundation, which now forms the symbolic core of the Foundation. History and review of the KZ-branch Walldorf are also the subject of the movie "The runway" by Malte Rauch, Eva and Bernard Voosen Türcke (2003). |
| VISC of: Nazi labour camp Walldorf - Airport Frankfurt |
* Question No assessment or comments or recommendations for change/improvement? This is my first VI nomination and I probably don't have the right feeling of what is expected. I'm open to all statements and would prefer a reasoned refusal compared to just no assessment. -- Norbert Nagel (talk) 18:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 20:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
| Review Page () |
| Nominated by: Jebulon (talk) on 2012-02-09 22:12 (UTC) |
| Description: A set of seven engravings showing the history of the evolution of the Hotel de Ville de Paris (Paris town hall), between 1583 and 1883. Complete series, high historical, encyclopedic and artistic values. Current location of the point of view geocoded. |
| VISC of: Engravings of history of Hotel de Ville de Paris by Theodor Hoffbauer |
| * Support Very interesting series. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 20:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
| Review Page () |
| Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2012-02-10 13:33 (UTC) |
| Description: A description of the set (optional). |
| VISC of: Carineta rufescens |
| * Support Good set --Llez (talk) 21:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC) |
| Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 20:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC) |
|
| Review Page () |
| Nominated by: Yann (talk) on 2012-02-14 16:42 (UTC) |
| Description: Two sides of a big spider, from Madhya Pradesh, India. |
| VISC of: Nephila pilipes (Giant Wood Spider), female |
| Support Good Set (Is this the same specimen?)--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
|
| Open for review. |
