Commons:Valued image candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Jump to: navigation, search
This project page in other languages:

English | Français | +/−

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, 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.

Skip to current candidates Valued Image links:

Contents

[edit] How to nominate an image or a set of images for VI status

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.

[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:

|My-image-filename.jpg

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] Renomination

Declined 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.

  • 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.

[edit] How to open a Most Valued Review

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. 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 images

Any 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

  • 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 (and the set criteria if appropriate). 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 or set 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/sets 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. -- ~~~~ *Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment My comment. -- Me You have a comment.
*{{Info}} My information. -- ~~~~ *Pictogram voting info.svg Info: My information. -- Me You have information.
*{{Neutral}} Reason for neutral vote. -- ~~~~ *Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Reason for neutral vote. -- Me You are uncertain or wish to record a neutral vote.
*{{Oppose}} Reason for opposing vote. -- ~~~~ *Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Reason for opposing vote. -- Me You think that the candidate fails one or more of the six mandatory criteria.
*{{Question}} My question. -- ~~~~ *Pictogram voting question.svg Question: My question. -- Me You have a question.
*{{Support}} Reason for supporting. -- ~~~~ *Symbol support vote.svg Support Reason for supporting. -- Me 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.

For sets, see also the Set criteria.

[edit] Changes in scope during the review period

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.



[edit] Pending valued image candidates

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page cache
1584 closed valued image candidates
Closed as Nominations
Promoted
  
932 (58.8%)
Undecided
  
234 (14.8%)
Declined
  
418 (26.4%)


[edit] New valued image nominations

Fale F1 Monza 2004 77.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Fale (talk) on 2009-11-19 07:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Pit Stop in Formula One
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I am not a specialist, but I would advance that the chosen scope seems too narrow. I would suggest to change it to "Pit stops in Formula One", with a link to the fitting category. New competitors may exist within that suggested widener scope—sportive spirit, indeed! --Myrabella (talk) 12:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, it wasn't an attempatative to remove the sportive spirit. The thing is that this is one of my first post in the VI section ;). Fale (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Scope changed from McLaren Pit Stop to Pit Stop in Formula One

  • 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".

VIC-scope-change template added by --Myrabella (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC).

  • Oh, my fault! I only tried to say that it would be sportive to change the scope even knowing that it could be more difficult. I am truly sorry for this misunderstanding. Thanks for the change; I hope that this new scope will attract some more reviewers :-) --Myrabella (talk) 16:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Probably I posted a 'too strong' answer, because I understood you were not pointing to a bad-faith act :). I hope too that in this way it will attract more reviewers :) Fale (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
PS: Sorry but I'm too tired and I'm writing with too many errors -.- Fale (talk) 16:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 14:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Bira.JPG
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Ondřej Žváček (talk) on 2009-11-19 19:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Bira River
Used in:
cs:Bira
Reason:
The better of the two pictures where the river is to be seen on Commons. -- Ondřej Žváček (talk)
It shows the river in its typical surroundings. On the left there you can see the Tikhonkaya hill, which is one of the symbols of Birobidzhan and the Jewish Autonomous Oblast. I believe it is a very similar case as with this Valued Image or this Valued Image.--Ondřej Žváček (talk) 18:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't agree with the comparison, the landscape and the appearance of the river looks far more "specific" in the Tekeze case, and the Arse VI shows nautical activity which constitute the main interest of the river (I think there are a few declined river scopes as well, quite similar to this one, if you want to have a look). But it is a very subjective impression. I feel that if the river is not visually distinctive enough, maybe a map is more appropriate. I don't have a strong enough opinion to vote on this single candidate, though. --Eusebius (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately I see no difference between the Tekeze case and this one. Why do you please think the landscape and the appearance of the river in the Tekeze case looks far more "specific"? If it is because the Tekeze River flows through (for an European) exciting landscape and the Bira River does not (it may be exciting landscape for an African though), that should not matter here I think. And yes, a map may be more appropriate. But there is no such map on Commons so far I know.--Ondřej Žváček (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
You're probably right, that's why I told it was pretty subjective and I wouldn't vote. --Eusebius (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Ondřej Žváček: you could add notes on the file naming the hill and the town on the opposite bank to characterize this view a bit more. --Myrabella (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 14:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Solanum sisymbriifolium flower.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Leonardo (talk) on 2009-11-23 14:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Solanum sisymbriifolium (Sticky Nightshade), flower
Open for review.
Bug November 2009-1.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alvesgaspar (talk) on 2009-11-25 12:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Zicca
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: - ID confirmed with world specialist on neotropical Heteropterans, Harry Brailovsky. Possibly a Zicca faeniola, but not possible to distinguish the species from a photo. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support DOF perhaps a bit narrow, but ok for me. --Eusebius (talk) 13:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 14:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Suvanto Pelkosenniemi 2009-10-02 01.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
MattiPaavola (talk) on 2009-11-25 12:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Suvanto village, Pelkosenniemi, Finland
Used in:
fi:Suvanto_(kylä)
Reason:
This is the only image in Commons about this one of the very few villages that survived the Second World War in Lapland, Finland. -- MattiPaavola (talk)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Could you categorize the picture down to the scope? --Eusebius (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Apparently the only picture we have for this scope. Provided this is exact, I support. --Eusebius (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: FYI, I just uploaded another image (File:Suvanto_2009-10-02_02.JPG) to the same category. However, I personally think that the new image doesn't represent the whole village in its present state as nicely as this nominated one. -- MattiPaavola (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
    Agree. --Eusebius (talk) 14:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 14:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Tatra 605 Kopřivnice.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pudelek (talk) on 2009-11-26 16:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Tatra 605
Used in:
cs:Tatra 605, de:Tatra 605
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good and rare --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Could you categorize the picture down to the scope? --Eusebius (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info: - done --Pudelek (talk) 09:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Open for review.
Tatra 623.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pudelek (talk) on 2009-11-26 16:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Tatra 623
Used in:
de:Tatra 623

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Not sure about the scope, because a Tatra 623 typically don't look like this one. Perhaps a better scope would be something like "Servicecar of Autoclub Behemia"? --Berthold Werner (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Open for review.
6150 Meyronnes.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Berru (talk) on 2009-11-26 19:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Meyronnes (Alpes-de-Haute-Provence)
Used in:
French wikipédia, English wikipedia (I added this image myself).
Reason:
To my knowlege, there is only one other picture of this village in Commons (Here), and the quality is lower. -- Berru (talk)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Subject is too tiny in the picture. I'd prefer a crop. Why is the picture categorized in two different valleys, in addition to the village cat (which is in neither, category-wise)? --Eusebius (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Open for review.
Lula - foto oficial05012007 edit.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Felipe Menegaz on 2009-11-27 00:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva
Open for review.
Reem-Lavan001.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
MathKnight on 2009-11-27 18:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Oryx leucoryx
Used in:
en:Wildlife of Israel, he:ראם לבן, de:Arabische Oryx, br:Oriks Arabia, ja:アラビアオリックス , ru:Белый орикс
Reason:
High res overview of the Oryx, shows body, head and horns. -- MathKnight
Open for review.
Ettringite.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2009-11-28 18:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Ettringite
Used in:
en.wikipedia.org ; fr.wiktionary.org ; de.wikipedia.org ; fr.wikipedia.org ; it.wikipedia.org
Reason:
Rare mineral species;Not geocoded, is a studio shot. -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk)

Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request: This is not a scope, but a description. Please format the scope as asked; something like Ettringite could be suitable, I guess. :-) --Myrabella (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 13:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Open for review.
Post Tower Bonn.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Der Wolf im Wald (talk) on 2009-11-29 12:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Post Tower
Open for review.
Cityscape Frankfurt.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Der Wolf im Wald (talk) on 2009-11-29 12:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Frankfurt am Main
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think the scope should simply be Frankfurt am Main. After a quick exploration it seems to be the best pic for this scope as well. --Eusebius (talk) 13:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I have changed the scope from "Skylines in Frankfurt" into "Frankfurt am Main" -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 15:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think it is the best picture we have for this scope. --Eusebius (talk) 15:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Open for review.
Altes Rathaus Bonn.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Der Wolf im Wald (talk) on 2009-11-29 12:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Altes Rathaus (Bonn)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Open for review.
Baureihe 151 144-3.JPG
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Der Wolf im Wald (talk) on 2009-11-29 12:57 (UTC)
Scope:
DB Class 151
Open for review.
Brandenburger Tor abends.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Der Wolf im Wald (talk) on 2009-11-29 12:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Brandenburg Gate at night
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No need for a nightly scope, no need for a night shop in a Brandenburg Gate scope. --Eusebius (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
maybe other scope? p.e. Lighting of Brandenburg Gate or Night in Berlin -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 12:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Open for review.
Canon EOS 400D.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Der Wolf im Wald (talk) on 2009-11-29 12:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Canon EOS 400D
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm not a big fan of the frontal view without lens (at least as the single view of the machine), but it is the cleanest picture we have and it is very descriptive. --Eusebius (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Open for review.
Nahverkehrszüge Frankfurt.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Der Wolf im Wald (talk) on 2009-11-29 14:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Trains of Germany

Pictogram voting question.svg Question: In what way does this particular picture represent German trains better than other pictures? Wolf (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

There is no other picture which shows more than one German train in such a quality. Besides the locomotives on this picture are very typical for German passenger train service and the photo is taken on the area of the most important German railway hub ([1]). -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Open for review.
Audi e-tron.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Der Wolf im Wald (talk) on 2009-11-29 14:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Audi e-tron
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question: Is the model different from this one, or is the car asymmetric? --Eusebius (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
it is the same car and nearly the same camera position, but the car is on a turning platform, so it is shown from all sides -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
You got me wrong: The car has this kind of air intake (behind the door) on the right flank, but not on the left flank? --Eusebius (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
the car has this air intake on both sides, but it can open and close it so that you can't see it: on my photo it is open and on the other one it is closed ;) -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 14:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
OK... I'm anything but a car specialist, I would have understood that more quickly on a jet picture (but the intakes shuts for different reasons I guess). Thanks for the info anyway. --Eusebius (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support OK for me. --Eusebius (talk) 15:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Open for review.
Roses des Sables Tunisie.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2009-11-29 16:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Desert rose
Used in:
fr.wikipedia.org: - used on 2 pages : Gypse; Rose des sables (roche)
Reason:
Good size of the subject;Not geocoded, is a studio shot. -- Archaeodontosaurus (talk)
Open for review.
Lagerfeuer.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Der Wolf im Wald (talk) on 2009-11-29 17:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Fire
This is one possibility, but we can alternatively change the scope from Fire to Campfire -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 12:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Open for review.
Frankfurter Römer.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Der Wolf im Wald (talk) on 2009-11-29 19:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Frankfurter Römer
Open for review.
Tours - cathédrale Saint-Gatien - nef.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2009-11-29 19:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Cathédrale Saint-Gatien de Tours (interior)
Open for review.
Sonnenuntergang Teneriffa.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Der Wolf im Wald (talk) on 2009-11-29 19:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Sunsets of Spain
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "Sunsets of Spain" cannot be a valid scope according to me, there is no visually distinctive characteristic to the Spanish sunsets. "Sunset" is a nice scope, but nominating any picture for that scope would be too ambitious, I'm afraid. --Eusebius (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Open for review.


[edit] Closed valued image candidates

[edit] Most valued reviews

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page cache

All open candidates in an MVR has to be in the discussed state, while the review is ongoing. Only when all candidates are due for closure can the MVR be closed.

Refer to the promotion rules and the instructions for closure for details.

[edit] Crematoria in concentration camps

Fale - Monaco - 162.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Fale (talk) on 2009-11-18 16:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Crematoria in concentration camps
  • Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request: Scope should be changed to "Crematoria" instead of "Ovens" (most commonly used in cooking and pottery). Furthermore, I would suggest to widen the scope to "Crematoria in concentration camps". --Myrabella (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry for the 'bad scope'. I have changed it, thank you :) --Fale (talk) 09:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Thanks for having nominated that recent picture. However, I think that an historical image like File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H26996, KZ Dachau, Verbrennungsofen.jpg has a higher value for the scope, even if it will never get promoted to QI. There are several other strong candidates in the the related category IMO, e.g. this B&W image or File:Auschwitz Crematorium.JPG for a recent view. A "Most Valued Review" could be opened. --Myrabella (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 14:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Bundesarchiv Bild 183-H26996, KZ Dachau, Verbrennungsofen.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Myrabella (talk) on 2009-11-26 07:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Crematoria in concentration camps
Used in:
en:Dachau concentration camp, hu:Dachaui koncentrációs tábor
Reason:
To me, this period image has a higher value for the scope, even if it will never get promoted to QI. Note that it is dated from may-june 1945, according to Deutsches Bundesarchiv, i.e. after the liberation of the camp. -- Myrabella (talk)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I believe it's essential to show that these installations had more than one inlet to insert bodies. Wolf (talk) 10:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Judicious remark. Would you have any opinion on the others candidates presented in that MVR ? Plus: we could add that image to the MVR, in order to take account of your comment. --Myrabella (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Open for review.
Bones of anti-Nazi German women still are in the crematoriums in the German concentration camp at Weimar, Germany.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Myrabella (talk) on 2009-11-26 07:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Crematoria in concentration camps
Used in:
en:German resistance, en:Nazi Germany, fr:Four crématoire, it:Genocidio, no:Tilintetgjørelsesleir, tr:Holokost, el:Ολοκαύτωμα, sk:Vojnové zločiny nacistického Nemecka počas druhej svetovej vojny
Reason:
A very stricking image within the scope, too. -- Myrabella (talk)

Symbol support vote.svg Support I know that there can be only one VI in a scope, but for me there are two in this MVR which have equal value, though due to slightly different reasons. I'll let someone else give the deciding vote(s). Wolf (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Open for review.
Auschwitz Crematorium.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Myrabella (talk) on 2009-11-26 07:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Crematoria in concentration camps
Used in:
de:KZ Auschwitz I (Stammlager)
Reason:
If a recent image was prefered, I'd tend to think that this one would well illustrate the scope. -- Myrabella (talk)

Symbol support vote.svg Support I know that there can be only one VI in a scope, but for me there are two in this MVR which have equal value, though due to slightly different reasons. I'll let someone else give the deciding vote(s). Wolf (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Open for review.


[edit] Closed Most Valued Reviews

Closed MVRs

[edit] Pending valued image set candidates

[edit] New valued image set nominations

[edit] Closed valued image set candidates