Commons:Kandydatury do wartościowych grafik

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut
COM:VIC
This project page in other languages:
Skip to image nominations Przejdź do nominacji obrazu Most valued reviews Skip to most valued reviews Skip to set nominations Skip to set nominations

Crystal Clear mimetype txt2.png Trwa tłumaczenie tej strony z jej angielskiej wersji .

Valued image seal.svg

Tu znajdują się kandydatury do miana wartościowej grafiki. Należy pamiętać, że wartościowa grafika to nie to samo co grafika na medal czy grafika wysokiej jakości. Jeśli potrzebujesz więcej informacji, uzyskasz je na stronie krytyka ~ocena~ grafiki.

Pojedyncza grafika zgłaszana jest do statusu wartościowa grafika (WG) , natomiast seria grafik do statusu zestaw wartościowej grafiki (ZWG) . Kandydatura musi być zgłoszona jako najcenniejsza grafika w określonej kategorii spośród wszystkich w Commons' . Oceny należy dokonać zgodnie z valued image criteria ~kryteriami wartościowej grafiki~.

Procedura rewizji wartościowej grafiki (RWG) zostaje otwarta w sytuacji, gdy dwie lub więcej grafik konkuruje o miano WG lub ZWG w tej samej kategorii.

Zasady zgłaszania kandydatur można znależć na stronie Commons:Valued image candidates/Zasady zgłaszania.

Niezakwalifikowana ~odrzucona/nieprzyjęta~ grafika może zostać ponownie zgłoszona w tej samej kategorii, gdy wszystkie wobec niej zastrzeżenia zostaną skorygowane. Grafika, która została sklasyfikowana jako "undecided" może zostać ponownie zgłoszona w każdej chwili. 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:

How to nominate an image for VI status[edit]

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.


Renomination[edit]

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 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
30,543 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
27,053 (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.
African hawk eagles (Aquila spilogaster) 2.jpg
Review Page (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)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Result: 2 support, 1 oppose => promoted --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
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.
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. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
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. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:50, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
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 Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-20 05:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Hôtel Dumay in Toulouse, the inner courtyard
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Best in scope --Ercé (talk) 06:00, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
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
  • Thanks for explaining. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
Xylophanes zurcheri MHNT CUT 2010 0 216 La Troncal Cañar Ecuador male dorsal.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-21 05:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Xylophanes zurcheri Mounted specimen male dorsal

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 13:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
San Simeone Piccolo (Venice) - interior.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-21 05:04 (UTC)
Scope:
San Simeone Piccolo (Venice) - Interior
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Usefull --Ercé (talk) 05:58, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
Augustins - Faune à la grappe - Alexandre Falguière RA 949.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-21 05:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Faun by Alexandre Falguière
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good image, used and useful -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
Alectoris chukar MHNT.ZOO.2010.11.6.11.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2018-04-21 05:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Alectoris chukar chukar eggs
Open for review.
BijouEgyptien MHNT.ETH.2012.24.34-1-2.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2018-04-21 06:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Art of Siwa-Ankle rings
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Used and useful, good image -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
Wedge-snouted skink (Trachylepis acutilabris).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-21 17:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Trachylepis acutilabris (Wedge-snouted skink)
Open for review.
Angolan python (Python anchietae) head.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-21 15:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Python anchietae (Angolan python) head
Open for review.
Dancing Jewel (Platycypha caligata) teneral male.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-21 21:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Platycypha caligata (Dancing jewel) teneral male
Open for review.
Xylophanes zurcheri MHNT CUT 2010 0 216 La Troncal Cañar Ecuador male ventral.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-22 04:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Xylophanes zurcheri Mounted specimen male ventral

Symbol support vote.svg Support best in scope Christian Ferrer (talk) 05:50, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
Place du Pont-Neuf (Toulouse).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-22 04:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Place du Pont Neuf, in Toulouse - view from Pont-Neuf
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support All criteria --Ercé (talk) 05:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
Musée national du Château de Pau - Portait d'Henri IV vers 1575 - P 82 1 1.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-22 04:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Henri, roi de Navarre Paintings in musée national du Château de Pau
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Best in scope --Ercé (talk) 05:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
Amaranth (ship, 1980), Sète.jpg
Review Page (edit)
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)
Open for review.
Alectoris chukar cypriotes MHNT.ZOO.2010.11.6.12.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2018-04-22 05:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Alectoris chukar eggs
Open for review.
Trier Fischers Maathes Gedenktafel.jpg
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.
Kranhäuser Cologne, April 2018 -01.jpg
Review it! (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
Used in:
en:Kranhaus
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]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:%D0%9A%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8B_%D0%B2_%D1%86%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5_%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F&action=edit