Commons:Кандидаты в ценные изображения

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
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, 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:

Как номинировать изображение или набор изображений на получение статуса «ценного»[edit]

Кандидатуры будет оцениваться с использованием критериев, перечисленных на странице Признаки ценных изображений Пожалуйста, прочитайте эти критерии перед номинацией изображения, чтобы среди кандидатов было меньше тех, что имеют мало шансов на успех. Убедитесь, что вы понимаете концепцию предметной области и выбрали правильную предметную область для своего изображения.


Пожалуйста, убедитесь, что предлагаемое вами изображение соответствует всем необходимым критериям до его выдвижения. Например, если нужен шаблон {{location}}, то он должен быть поставлен заранее (студийные работы можно пометить шаблоном {{Studio work}}). Если нет соответствующих категорий, то создайте их заранее перед номинацией. Хотя некоторые отзывы могут помочь устранить погрешности, это ваша ответственность, как номинатора оформить ваше изображение до того, как предоставить его на рассмотрение. Если вы предложили изображение, которое игнорирует один из критериев, не удивляйтесь, если оно не получит статуса ценного изображения.

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.

Adding a new nomination (set)[edit]

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.

Повторная номинация[edit]

Отклоненные кандидаты в качественные изображения и наборы могут быть повторно выдвинуты любым зарегистрированным участником только после того как одна или несколько основных причин, из-за которых изображение было отклонено будут исправлены. Undecided кандидаты в качественные изображения и наборы могут быть повторно выдвинуты в том же состоянии, хотя рекомендуется рассмотреть и исправить причины, которые, возможно, помешали получению статуса во время предыдущей номинации.

После того, как проблемы исправлены нужно выполнить следующую процедуру повторной номинации:

Шаг 1: Отредактируйте подстраницу кандидата, которого Вы повторно номинировать. Отклоненные заявки находятся в категории [[:Category:Declined valued image candidates}, а заявки, по которым не было принято решение в категории Category:Undecided valued image candidates. Страницы в этих категориях отсортированы по дате предыдущей номинации.

Шаг 2: Замените предыдущие дату и время номинации новыми. Для этого нужно вставить строку

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

Шаг 3: Замените статус "undecided" или "declined" на "nominated" (или "discussed", если изображение добавляется в раздел Most Valued Review).

Шаг 4: Если предыдущую номинацию делал другой участник, то нужно заменить имя номинатора. Для этого нужно вставить строку

|nominator=~~~

Шаг 5: Если у кандидата до этого не было архивной ссылки на предыдущее обсуждение, то ещё можно сделать следующим способом:

  • Вырезать текст в предыдущей секции "review section" (нужно оставить закрывающие фигурные скобки "]]")
  • Заменить параметр "review" строкой
|review=
{{subst:VIC-archive}}
}}
  • Сохранить страницу
  • Появится красная ссылка на предыдущую номинацию. Кликните на ней и вставьте предыдущий обзор
  • Сохраните эту подстраницу

Шаг 6: Добавить подстраницу в список кандидатов

How to open a Most Valued Review[edit]

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 candidates[edit]

How to review an image[edit]

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 procedure[edit]

  • 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 period[edit]

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 candidates[edit]

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache
30,535 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
27,045 (88.6%) 
Undecided
  
1,567 (5.1%) 
Declined
  
1,923 (6.3%) 



New valued image nominations[edit]

   
Mahe-nou-cover.jpg
View
Nominated by:
Masum-al-Hasan on 2018-04-13 09:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Cover of Mahe Nou magazine published from Dhaka since 1949

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You need to get the name of the magazine right and specify which issue it is. Charles (talk) 14:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Result: 0 support, 0 oppose =>
undecided. Olivier LPB (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
Revue DIA 100 135 film cartridge 01.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
El Grafo (talk) on 2018-04-16 08:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Revue DIA 100, 135 film cartridge
Reason:
Pictogram voting info.svg Info This is actually re-badged Agfa film, sold under the Revue brand by the German distributor Foto-Quelle. Quelle was the German equivalent of Sears or Hanimex, and the Foto-Quelle branch sold re-badged versions of pretty much everything from 135 film rolls to medium format cameras (see Camera Wiki for some info). As such, this is a tiny little piece of the lower-end consumer side of the history of the photographic industry in Europe. -- El Grafo (talk)
Open for review.
Agfaphoto APX 400 (new emulsion) 135 film cartridge 05.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
El Grafo (talk) on 2018-04-16 09:19 (UTC)
Scope:
AgfaPhoto APX 400, 135 film cartridge
Reason:
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Another example of the weird re-branding practices in the photographic industry. While you can still buy film made by Agfa Gevaert under the "Rollei" and "Japan Camera Hunter" brands, this Agfa-branded film is not made by Agfa (see film box). Word on the street is that it's very similar to Kentmere 400 and I can personally confirm that both the carton box and the plastic canister are identical to those of Ilford films, so it's very likely that they're produced by Harman in the UK. -- El Grafo (talk)
Open for review.
Zand en baggerdepot Broek, Friesland 06.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2018-04-17 05:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:GINAF X 4446 TS GINAF truck X 4446 TS.

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment the other truck in the gallery is a much better VI if it's the same model. Charles (talk) 09:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

OK. thank you for comment.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
Lagopus muta rupestris MHNT.ZOO.2010.11.4.5.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2018-04-17 07:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Lagopus muta rupestris egg
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 07:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Comblain la Tour The rocks.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
PJDespa (talk) on 2018-04-17 09:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Rocks of Comblain-la-Tour, Hamoir, Wallonia, Belgium
Used in:
List of protected heritage sites in Hamoir
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - OK, understood, but that image shows the entire group of rocks and this doesn't, so how can this be sufficiently useful? I question that. Maybe neither photo should be a VI. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, at least temporarily, per my comment above. I doubt this can really be a VI without being a picture of the entire rock formation, or at least the great majority of it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If you want to look at satellite photography (here) you see that this geological formation is far in width but far in length. Your demands are disproportionate, and this opposition vote incomprehensible. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. The other picture shows much more of the formation, though. So why is it unreasonable to think that a good photo that encompasses a fuller view of the formation is possible? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
If you apply your reasoning we will stop everything and wait for better images. The good progress of the project is to reserve the negative votes for flagrant anomalies of our operation. In this case we have two images: one that has a technical problem and one that is very acceptable. It is not perfect but if a better image comes it can pass in MRV because the specificity of our label is not definitive. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, if you think this is a good enough illustration to be worthy of the VI designation, I'll remove my opposing vote, but in cases like this, I appreciate a discussion, at least. And I don't take back any of the substantive criticisms I made. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I do want to quibble with your argument a bit, though. In no way is my argument to "stop everything and wait for better images". The fundamental question is whether this is a complete enough picture of the scope to be useful enough to merit being called a VI. You surely won't suggest that's not a legitimate criterion, right? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:25, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
Jeanne Guionie, de l'Opéra comique (cropped).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Yann (talk) on 2018-04-17 14:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Jeanne Guionie
Reason:
French soprano (1879-1976). Studio shot, so no geolocation. -- Yann (talk)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - My initial reaction is that the other two photos of her in the category (including the other version of this photo) are probably better in scope, though the ideal thing would be a good digital restoration. I'd like to consider your argument, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
    • This one is high resolution, and grayscale, as it is a black and white picture. However I could make a second nomination. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
Desert elephant (Loxodonta africana) spraying sand.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-17 16:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Loxodonta africana (Desert elephant) spraying sand while guarding young

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, but those are all African bush (or savanna) elephants, not desert elephants - very different animals with distinct behaviours. One interesting difference (I was told and have observed) is that desert elephants are much more gentle with the trees they eat as there are so few around. Also, the desert elephant covers its young with branches while they sleep - I've not seen this with the African bush elephant. Charles (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The two logics are worth, in any case very beautiful image. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
African hawk eagles (Aquila spilogaster) 2.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-17 12:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Aquila spilogaster (African hawk eagles) pair, showing back feathers

Previous Review undecided


  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, I suppose this picture is better than a nominated one because of close-up and front view. Voltmetro 07:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes but at the scope field wrote about A. spilogaster as Species, not about a pair. Voltmetro 07:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • So the nominator should change a category to an other one connected to pairs of these birds. Voltmetro 07:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Back feathers and front front can constitute different scopes (like with a motor car or building) if they are considered valuable, as I believe is the case for this species. The chosen category is correct. Charles (talk) 09:30, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

  • Voltmetro, please reread the scope. It is indeed a pair, and in fact more specific than that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
    • There is an category Aquila spilogaster with description, not category connented to Pairs of Aquila spilogaster. Voltmetro 10:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I agree with Charles that this is a useful scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Voltmetro: What we're judging here is not the linked category but the scope, as shown in the "scope" field. You are basing your vote on irrelevant criteria, and therefore, I think it's not appropriate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
    • All that wrote in scope field must connect with category but I don't think that "pair" can relate to category of birds species, sorry. The mere mention of that is shown in the photo pair of birds is not enough to relate "pair" to species. Voltmetro 19:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't understand what you mean to say. Can you restate your remark some other way? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It's not scope, it's simple description. It could be a scope if there was an article about pairs of birds but I've never seen any page like that. So this scope is meaningless and probably never used in future. I don't see any reason to promote this picture to VIC, it maybe a quality image because of a great composition and the photographer's ability, but really unusable for VIC in my opinion. Sorry. Voltmetro 09:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - It's a pity that no-one has decided to vote so as to break this unfortunate tie. I realize that there are some people who refuse to vote for any photo at VIC unless it's already used in a Wikipedia article - an irrelevant criterion, but no-one can be forced to vote. It would be truly unfortunate for a photo to lose out on being promoted because of a misunderstanding of the difference between a Commons category and a VI scope, though, don't you think? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose =>
undecided. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
Dusky sunbird (Cinnyris fuscus) male drinking.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-17 12:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Cinnyris fuscus (Dusky sunbird) male drinking

Previous review undecided


  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This nomination is better to depict a scope. Voltmetro 18:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think it would be helpful Voltmetro if you take the trouble to read the VI guidelines on suitable scopes. Charles (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Obviously useful, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose =>
undecided. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
Church of Notre-Dame du Gua in Aubin 01.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tournasol7 (talk) on 2018-04-17 18:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of Notre-Dame du Gua in Aubin, eastern exposure
Used in:
fr:Liste des monuments historiques de l'Aveyron
Open for review.
Macroglossum insipida papuanum MHNT CUT 2010 0 217 - Kuranda Queensland - male ventral.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-18 04:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Macroglossum insipida papuanum Mounted specimen male ventral
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Usefull --Ercé (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
Chiesa di San Salvador - chiostro.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-18 04:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of San Salvatore (Venice) - The first cloister
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:46, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
Augustins - Diane - marble - Alexandre Falguière RA 959.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-18 04:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Diana by Alexandre Falguière Marble

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Archaeodontosaurus: Since you made the Musée des Augustins part of the scope I would expect to see the statue in its museum environment (like here. Suggest to remove the location from the scope, it's irrelevant for the image. --El Grafo (talk) 07:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why not, the caption is sufficiently explicit. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Best in scope --Ercé (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support – just FTR ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
Tetrastes bonasia rupestris MHNT.ZOO.2010.11.4.11.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2018-04-18 06:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Tetrastes bonasia rupestris egg
Open for review.
BijouEgyptien MHNT.ETH.2012.24.31.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2018-04-18 06:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Art of Siwa-Triple bracelet
Open for review.
Saint Julian Church in Cransac 02.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tournasol7 (talk) on 2018-04-18 16:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint Julian Church in Cransac, north-western exposure
Used in:
pl:Cransac
Open for review.
Vieux Crabe (ship, 1951), Sète.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Christian Ferrer (talk) on 2018-04-18 17:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Vieux Crabe (ship, 1951)
Open for review.
Caecum vitreum 01.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2018-04-18 18:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Caecum vitreum, shell
Open for review.
Saint Peter Church of Canet-de-Salars 01.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tournasol7 (talk) on 2018-04-18 19:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint Peter Church of Canet-de-Salars, south-eastern exposure
Used in:
fr:Liste des monuments historiques de l'Aveyron
Open for review.
White-fronted plover (Charadrius marginatus) juvenile.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-18 21:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Charadrius marginatus (White-fronted plover) juvenile
Open for review.
White-throated canary (Crithagra albogularis crocopygia).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-18 21:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Crithagra albogularis crocopygia (White-throated canary)
Open for review.
Wire-tailed swallow (Hirundo smithii smithii).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-18 21:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Hirundo smithii smithii (Wire-tailed swallow)
Open for review.
St Mary Magdalene Church, Sandringham.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
-- DeFacto (talk). on 2018-04-18 21:48 (UTC)
Scope:
St Mary Magdalene Church, Sandringham, Norfolk from the north
Used in:
en:Sandringham, Norfolk, en:Burial places of British royalty, en:St. Mary Magdalene Church, Sandringham
Open for review.
Cypa decolor MHNT CUT 2010 0 219 Sanpatang Chiang Mai Thailand female dorsal.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-19 04:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Cypa decolor Mounted specimen female dorsal

Useful and used --Llez (talk) 05:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
San Giacomo dall'Orio (Venice) - Lavanda dei piedi, (secolo XVI) di M. Colonna.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-19 04:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Jesus Christ washing the feet of the apostles M. Colonna in San Giacomo dall'Orio (Venice)
Open for review.
Augustins - L'Eté - Antonin Mercié - 77 10 2.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-19 04:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Summer by Antonin Mercié
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Best in scope --Ercé (talk) 07:09, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
Brinda Karat by Debjani Basu.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Vensatry (Ping me) on 2018-04-19 06:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Brinda Karat
Used in:
Brinda Karat
Open for review.
Namib rock agama (Agama planiceps) male.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-19 09:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Agama planiceps (Namib rock agama) male
Open for review.
Namib rock agama (Agama planiceps) female.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-19 09:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Agama planiceps (Namib rock agama) female
Open for review.
Namib rock agama (Agama planiceps) female head.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-19 09:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Agama planiceps (Namib rock agama) female head
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Usefull --Ercé (talk) 09:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
Lagopus muta helveticus MHNT.ZOO.2010.11.5.2.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2018-04-19 09:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Lagopus muta helvetica eggs
Open for review.
Cypa decolor MHNT CUT 2010 0 219 Sanpatang Chiang Mai Thailand female ventral.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-20 05:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Cypa decolor Mounted specimen female ventral

Symbol support vote.svg Support best in scope Christian Ferrer (talk) 06:18, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
Hôtel Dumay - Cour intérieure et entrée du Musée du Vieux Toulouse.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-20 05:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Hôtel Dumay in Toulouse, the inner courtyard
Open for review.
Augustins - Bergère au milieu de son troupeau - François Gauzi - RO 1036.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-20 05:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Shepherd among his flock by François Gauzi. Musée des Augustins, de Toulouse
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Bergère in English is "shepherd". -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done Thanks --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Useful, best in scope, and a very nice painting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
Lagopus muta muta MHNT.ZOO.2010.11.5.3.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2018-04-20 07:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Lagopus muta muta egg
Open for review.
Hemicycla consobrina 01.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2018-04-20 15:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Hemicycla consobrina, shell
Open for review.
Xylophanes zurcheri MHNT CUT 2010 0 216 La Troncal Cañar Ecuador male dorsal.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-21 05:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Xylophanes zurcheri Mounted specimen male dorsal
Open for review.
San Simeone Piccolo (Venice) - interior.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-21 05:04 (UTC)
Scope:
San Simeone Piccolo (Venice) - Interior
Open for review.
Augustins - Faune à la grappe - Alexandre Falguière RA 949.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-21 05:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Faun by Alexandre Falguière
Open for review.
Alectoris chukar MHNT.ZOO.2010.11.6.11.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2018-04-21 05:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Alectoris chukar eggs
Open for review.
BijouEgyptien MHNT.ETH.2012.24.34-1-2.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2018-04-21 06:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Art of Siwa-Ankle rings
Open for review.



Pending valued image set candidates[edit]

New valued image set nominations[edit]

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

Closed valued image set candidates[edit]