Commons:Valued image candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:VIC)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: COM:VIC

Skip to image nominations Skip to image nominations Most valued reviews Skip to most valued reviews Skip to set nominations Skip to set nominations
Valued image seal.svg

These are the candidates to become valued images. Please note that this is not the same as featured pictures or quality images. If you simply want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at photography critiques.

Single images can be proposed for valued image (VI) status. Candidates must be proposed as being the most valuable of all Commons' images within a specified scope. Judging is carried out according to the valued image criteria.

A Most Valued Review (MVR) is opened where there are two or more candidates competing within essentially the same scope.

The rules for promotion can be found at Commons:Valued image candidates/Promotion rules.

An image which has previously been declined can be renominated within the same scope only if the issues leading to the original decline have been addressed. Previously nominated images that were closed as "undecided" can be renominated at any time. Once a candidate achieves VI or VIS status it can normally be demoted only if some better candidate replaces it during an MVR.

If you would like to nominate an image for VI status, please do so following the instructions below. If you are proposing a better candidate within essentially the same scope as an image which already has VI status, please open an MVR.

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 Scope is the scope of both images, and candidate1.jpg and candidate2.jpg are 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 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. -- ~~~~ 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. -- ~~~~ 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
48,506 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
43,385 (89.4%) 
Undecided
  
2,752 (5.7%) 
Declined
  
2,369 (4.9%) 


New valued image nominations[edit]

   
Breviceps gibbosus Cape Rain Froga - Cape Town 2.JPG
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Massimo510 (talk) on 2022-06-25 7:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Breviceps gibbosus (Cape rain frog) - South Africa
Used in:
See global usage
Reason:
Used not only in the page for its own species but also in the page for its family -- Massimo510 (talk)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Per COM:VIS, there are domain-specific scope guidelines for animals, including amphibians, advising that the scope be in the form of scientific name (vernacular name), sub-scope. Please revise. --GRDN711 (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The scope is now acceptable but it requires a geocoding of the image in the caption. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment ok i have a added a caption to the image showing the location let me know if it is acceptable.Massimo510 (talk)

talk]])talk]]) 05:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This nomination is appropriate for VI consideration but I agree with Archaeodontosaurus that GPS coordinates should be added to the image description per COM:VICR(5). --GRDN711 (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment An estimated geocoding would seem to me sufficient in this case.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Its habitat range is quite small so i will try to find the estimated location and how would i be able to mark it as estimated loction Massimo510 (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Template:Location for {{Location |1= |2= |3= }} to add GPS coordinates.
Template:Location estimated for {{Location estimated}} as an option to place a notice that GPS coordinates are estimated and not uploaded from camera metadata. --GRDN711 (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Approximant location has been added to the image let me know if it is good Massimo510 (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Luis Aguilar publicity postcard photo from the caribean, 1954 (cropped).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
BTS Begins Logo.svgAurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) on 2022-06-27 18:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Luis Aguilar
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A photo of a man who's not a farmer holding a chicken is an odd photo to find best in scope as a portrait, but unless and until a clear photo of Mr. Aguilar without a chicken is uploaded, this is best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Jorge Negrete publicity photo, c.1940s (cropped).jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
BTS Begins Logo.svgAurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) on 2022-06-27 18:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Jorge Negrete
Open for review.
Terdeghem.- Régulateur centrifuge du moulin en brique Steenmeulen (10).jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2022-06-28 10:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Mill governor in Steenmeulen windmill, Terdeghem.- France

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The Category:Mill governors linked in the scope is too broad. Will be useful to create a CAT for this particular location or type/vintage of governor. --Tagooty (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've now done some reading on mill governors. They are Centrifugal governors. Such governors are also used in steam engines, clocks, etc. Is the design of centrifugal governors used in mills different from other uses? Did French mills use a design different from mills in Netherlands and other countries? Are these governors of a particular model made by one manufacturer? The scope will depend on the answers to these questions. I request others to give their opinions. --Tagooty (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.
Official portrait of Petro Poroshenko.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
A1Cafel (talk) on 2022-06-28 11:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Presidential portrait of Petro Poroshenko
Used in:
Petro Poroshenko
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Common clubtail (Atrophaneura coon doubledayi) male Phuket.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-06-30 10:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Atrophaneura coon doubledayi (Common clubtail) male underside
Reason:
new nom but Wikipedia article was moved from Atrophaneura coon to Losaria coon in 2012 and I cannot move it back. Can you help please Archaeodontosaurus? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC) -- Charlesjsharp (talk)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support prefect now. The other nomination can be marked for deletion by an administrator. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.
Common sailor (Neptis hylas papaja) underside Phuket.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-06-29 11:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Neptis hylas papaja (Common sailor) underside
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Hill grass yellow (Eurema simulatrix tecmessa) underside Phang Nga.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-06-29 11:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Eurema simulatrix tecmessa (Hill grass yellow) underside

what is the problem please? Charlesjsharp (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is an error message in red but I saw this message on recent images at home too and I don't know why...The image is excellent you should add the geocoding. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I had that red message too. Gone now. Geocoding was always there actually. Charlesjsharp (talk) 07:51, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Perfcet now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Feuerwehr Kärlich 1983-07-03 Magirus Tanklöschfahrzeug.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Spurzem (talk) on 2022-06-29 12:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Water tender based on Magirus-Deutz Rundhauber, built in 1959
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Agustín Lara, circa 1950s.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
BTS Begins Logo.svgAurelio de Sandoval (Mensajes aquí please) on 2022-06-29 16:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Agustín Lara
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Given the degree of matgnification in this extracted image, quality is very good. --GRDN711 (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Whose signature is on the photo? Is it a problem? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:59, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Lexus RX 350 L FL 1X7A0345.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2022-06-29 19:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Lexus RX 350 L (GGL21/GGL26) - facelift - left rear view
Used in:
de:Lexus RX, en:Lexus RX
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
    [reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment What does "facellift" mean with respect to this image? Also, as models change constantly, does a year or range of years need to be added to the scope? --GRDN711 (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Maxus Deliver 9 1X7A0341.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2022-06-29 19:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Maxus Deliver 9 - left front view
Used in:
pl:Maxus V90
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Muiden, Grote of Sint-Nicolaaskerk 09-05-2022. (actm.) 01.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2022-06-30 04:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Grote- of Nicolaaskerk, Muiden (Church tower, west side.)
Open for review.
Erinnyis ello ello MHNT CUT 2010 0 525 Itatiaia National Park Brazil - female dorsal.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-06-30 04:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Erinnyis ello ello specimen - female dorsal
Open for review.
(Agen) Presentation de Jésus au Temple - Jean André - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-06-30 04:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Presentation de Jésus au Temple (Presentation of Jesus in the Temple) by Jean André - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.
(Agen) Cathédrale Saint-Caprais - Plafond de la croisée du transept.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-06-30 04:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint-Caprais Cathedral - Ceiling of the crossing of the transept - Agen, Lot-et-Garonne, France.
Open for review.
Mercedes-Benz 917, Bj. 1988, 170 PS, Aufbau Ziegler.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Spurzem (talk) on 2022-06-30 11:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Water tender based on Mercedes-Benz LK 917 by Ziegler in 1988, front and right side

Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.
Long-branded blue crow (Euploea algea menetriesii) Phi Phi.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-06-29 11:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Euploea algea menetriesii (Long-branded blue crow) dorsal
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Straight pierrot (Caleta roxus pothus) underside Phuket.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-06-29 12:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Caleta roxus pothus (Straight pierrot) underside
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Striped albatross (Appias olferna olferna) female underside cr.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-07-01 08:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Appias olferna olferna (Striped albatross) female underside

Symbol support vote.svg Support Best om scope --Tagooty (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.
Maybach 62 S Landaulet 1X7A0314.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2022-06-30 17:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Maybach 62 S Landaulet - right rear view
Used in:
de:Maybach 57 und 62, de:Cabriolimousine, de:Maybach-Manufaktur

Symbol support vote.svg Support Best in scope and used. --Tagooty (talk) 04:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.
Baraques 31-33-35-39-41 rue d Anjou 78000 Versailles (PA00087709).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2022-06-30 18:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Immeuble, 31, 33, 35, 39, 41 rue d'Anjou (Versailles)
Open for review.
Side Locomotive NBL 22782 Mysore Apr22 A7C 01895.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2022-06-30 14:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Side view of North British Locomotive Company steam locomotive No. 22782, Mysuru Junction Railway Station, India
Used in:
en:4-4-4wikidata:Q112785908
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Scope should identify this as the "right side view". Also, scope seems overly decriptive with the inclusion of the location information (can be retained in image description). Suggest shorter, more concise scope of "North British Locomotive Company steam locomotive No. 22782 - right side view" --GRDN711 (talk) 13:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.
Front Locomotive NBL 22782 Mysore Apr22 A7C 01901.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2022-06-30 14:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Front view of North British Locomotive Company steam locomotive No. 22782, Mysuru Junction Railway Station, India
Used in:
en:Mysuru Junction railway station

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Suggest shorter, more concise scope of "North British Locomotive Company steam locomotive No. 22782 - front view" --GRDN711 (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info As this is an exhibit, the convention is to include the location. --Tagooty (talk) 15:33, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.
(Toulouse) Hercule et Cerbère - Musée Saint-Raymond Ra 28 e.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-01 04:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Hercule et Cerbère (Hercules and Cerberus) - Musée Saint-Raymond Toulouse

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please check cat. --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.
Erinnyis ello ello MHNT CUT 2010 0 525 Itatiaia National Park Brazil - female ventral.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-01 04:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Erinnyis ello ello specimen - female ventral
Open for review.
(Agen) Esquisse pour le portrait équestre de Ferdinand VII, roi d'Espagne - Francisco de Goya - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-01 04:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Retrato ecuestre de Fernando VII (boceto) por Francisco de Goya (Sketch for the Equestrian Portrait of Ferdinand VII) - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen

Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Open for review.
Mülheim-Kärlich, Historienstein - Steppenelefant (2022-07-01 Sp).JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Spurzem (talk) on 2022-07-01 12:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Detail "Steppenelefant" of Historienstein Raiffeisenplatz Kärlich by Paul Milles
What's going on again? A monument is not a biological textbook. For a while I thought the bullying was going away. -- Spurzem (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you choose to use an obsolete taxonomy, please use correct spelling. @Archaeodontosaurus: Can you advise whether an obsolete taxonomy is suitable for this VI please. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The taxonomy was taken from a 1981 publication by a local archaeologist. In order to avoid a dispute about possible new scientific terms, I have reduced the scope to a neutral formulation. -- Spurzem (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.
Shlomo Hillel 1970.png
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ezarateesteban on 2022-07-01 23:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Shlomo Hillel
Open for review.
(Toulouse) Palais Niel - buste de François Lucas par Pierre Vigan 1811.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-02 04:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Buste de François Lucas par Pierre Vigan, Palais Niel Toulouse
Open for review.
Erinnyis ello encantada MHNT CUT 2010 0 525 - Puerto Ayora, Santa Cruz Island, Galápagos, Ecuador - male dorsal.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-02 04:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Erinnyis ello encantada specimen - male dorsal
Open for review.
(Agen) Coloquio galante - Francisco de Goya - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-02 04:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Coloquio galante - Francisco de Goya - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen (Gallant colloquium)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question A very similar Goya painting, known as in English as The flirtation is in the Marquis of La Romana Collection, Madrid, Spain. Is this one a copy? It does not look to be by the same artist. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question RSVP Archaeodontosaurus Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen the painting but I have no information other than that of the two museums. There must be two versions, it's quite common, that's why we give the place of exposure in the scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The the Spanish Goya website: "There is another version of The Flirtation in the Agen Museum, considered to be an original Goya by some authors such as Gudiol (although it is likely to be a copy)." I 100% agree but your nomination is OK! If it were me, I would add attr.. Gallant colloquium is not English. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.
Muiden, Naarder Poortbrug. 09-05-2022. (actm.) 01.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2022-07-02 04:31 (UTC)
Scope:

Muiden Naarderpoort bridge over the Naardertrekvaart. (South south

west side.)
Open for review.
Breviceps namaquensis 1.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Massimo510 (talk) on 2022-07-02 08:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Breviceps namaquensis (Namaqua rain frog) - South Africa
Used in:
See global usage
Reason:
Best in scope -- Massimo510 (talk)
Open for review.
Elephant hawkmoth (Deilephila elpenor) male.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-07-02 13:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Deilephila elpenor (Elephant hawkmoth) male, lateral view
Open for review.
Asian pintail (Acisoma panorpoides) female Phuket.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-07-02 15:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Acisoma panorpoides (Asian pintail) female
Open for review.
Zaaddozen van een Ratelaar (Rhinanthus) 26-06-2022. (d.j.b) 02.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2022-07-02 15:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Rhinanthus minor seed box (rattle).
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Excellent and useful -- Spurzem (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.
La glanerie Pont de la Libération (2).JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2022-07-02 16:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Pont de la Libération (La Glanerie), North west side, Belgique.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review.
Blue marsh hawk (Orthetrum glaucum) male Phuket.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-07-02 20:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Orthetrum glaucum (Blue marsh hawk) male
Open for review.
Rumes le mémorial du motard égaré (2).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2022-07-02 21:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Mémorial du Motard égaré (La Glanerie), front and left side. (Belgique)
Open for review.
Cyriopagopus minax MHNT Thaillande.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-03 04:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Cyriopagopus minax specimen - male.jpg
Reason:
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think the images should be side by side with a divider so it doesn't look like two different spiders. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Open for review.
    (Agen) Portrait de Charles III d'Espagne - Mariano Salvador Maella - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-03 04:31 (UTC)
    Scope:
    ‎‎Preparatory study for the painting "Portrait of Charles III by Mariano Salvador Maella - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen
    Open for review.
    (Agen) Cathédrale Saint-Caprais - Statue de Saint Caprais 1844 - Louis Rochet PalissyPM47000501.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-03 04:32 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Saint-Caprais Cathedral - Statue of Saint Caprasius of Agen 1844 by Louis Rochet
    Open for review.
    Muiden, Florishaven. Herengracht 81. 09-05-2022. (actm.) 02.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2022-07-03 04:40 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Florishaven Herengracht 81 Muiden.
    Open for review.
    Elne Place de la République.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Palauenc05 (talk) on 2022-07-03 09:13 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Place de la République in Elne, France (view from north)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 09:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Open for review.
    Common flangetail (Ictinogomphus decoratus melaenops) Phi Phi.jpg
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-07-03 08:56 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Ictinogomphus decoratus melaenops (Common flangetail)
    Reason:
    existing VI same ssp with lateral view. -- Charlesjsharp (talk)
    Open for review.
    Greater bluewing (Rhyothemis plutonia) male Phuket.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-07-03 09:04 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Rhyothemis plutonia (Greater bluewing) male

    Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful and used. --GRDN711 (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Open for review.
    Green metalwing (Neurobasis chinensis) male 2.jpg
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-07-03 09:32 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Neurobasis chinensis (Green metalwing) male flashing hindwing
    Open for review.
    Stabilo Boss Original (1).jpg
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Ryse93 (talk) on 2022-07-03 11:42 (UTC)
    Scope:
    STABILO BOSS

    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There are other images of the Stabilo Boss text marker, including some by you. Tjhe first two markers in this image are not sharp. Why do you think this image is most valuable? --GRDN711 (talk) 13:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @GRDN711: I think it is the most valuable image since it highlights the highlighters well and the image has good resolution. And if not I have this image File:Stabilo Boss Original (5).jpg, for you it will be better? --Ryse93 (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Open for review.
    Ingang Paterskerk in Rekem (deelgemeente) van Lanaken provincie Limburg in België.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Famberhorst (talk) on 2022-07-03 16:52 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Main entrance of the Paterskerk in Rekem
    Open for review.
    2022-05-06 Empfang der Eisbären Berlin im Roten Rathaus by Sandro Halank–084.jpg
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Sandro Halank (talk) on 2022-07-03 17:42 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Marco Baßler
    Used in:
    de:Marco Baßler, d:Q67477068
    Open for review.
    2000-06-10 02 Watermen unloading lobsters on Tangier Island, Virginia USA.jpg
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    GRDN711 (talk) on 2022-07-03 16:51 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Watermen unloading catch on Tangier Island, Virginia USA
    Reason:
    Tangier is one of the few inhabited, low lying islands in the Chesapeake Bay of Virginia. It has a unique history and a sustaining industry of fishing and tourism. With climate change, the Chesapeake is rising and the island and way of life may disappear within a few years. -- GRDN711 (talk)
    Open for review.
    Katholische Pfarrkirche St. Bartholomäus Kettig (2009-07-19 Sp).jpg
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Spurzem (talk) on 2022-07-03 19:55 (UTC)
    Scope:
    St. Bartholomäus (Kettig) in 2009, view from southeast
    Open for review.



    Pending Most valued review candidates[edit]

    Yellow-wattled lapwing[edit]

       
    Yellow-wattled lapwing (Vanellus malabaricus) 2.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Charles (talk) on 2018-01-08 09:26 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Vanellus malabaricus (Yellow-wattled lapwing)

    ✓ Done sorry. Charles (talk) 11:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
    promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
    [reply]
    Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
    Yellow-wattled lapwing (Vanellus malabaricus) Yala.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-05-16 13:03 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Vanellus malabaricus (Yellow-wattled lapwing)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm puzzled by this nomination. The other photo shows the legs, tail and structure of the wings better at review size, doesn't it? What's the advantage of this photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination I think you're right. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

    Bittium glareosum, shell[edit]

       
    Bittium glareosum 01.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Llez (talk) on 2014-09-04 05:42 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Bittium glareosum, Shell

    Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope --LivioAndronico talk 08:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
    promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
    [reply]
    Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
    Bittium glareosum 02.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Llez (talk) on 2022-06-05 07:47 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Bittium glareosum, shell
    Reason:
    This is a much better preserved specimen --Llez (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC) -- Llez (talk)[reply]
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support More details. But do the differences in color reflect differences in subspecies? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pictogram voting info.svg Info There are no accepted subspecies (see [1]) --Llez (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support per nom. --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question I don't understand the colour difference. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pictogram voting info.svg Info There are many species with variable colour and/or pattern, see for example here, here, here, here, here (in the latter example not only the same species but the same population, collected in an area of a few square meters), and many more. --Llez (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

    Porta Nigra[edit]

       
    Trier Porta Nigra BW 1.JPG
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Berthold Werner (talk) on 2022-06-15 02:40 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Porta Nigra
    Used in:
    de:Porta Nigra, en:Porta Nigra, fr:Porta Nigra ...
    • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Is there any reason why this image is more valuable for illustrating the subject than, say, Image:Trier, Porta Nigra cityside.jpg? I'm not trying to be facetious--I'm simply wondering if there's a particular reason why an image of the north side is more valuable than one of the south. --jonny-mt 13:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • First of all I didn't think to select a own valued image for each side. Perhaps you're right. But the north side is the side the romans build to impress the Germanic tribes so it's a kind of "main side" and more impressing. Most pictures in books and postcards show the north side. But as a "UNESCO World Heritage Site" the Porta Nigra may got a valued image for each side. --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have you considered doing a series, then? I like this shot and agree that it's valuable, but since I'm having a hard time gauging its value relative to other similar pictures on Commons I'm Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral for the time being. I'd certainly be willing to support a series showing various angles of this World Heritage Site, though. --jonny-mt 15:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with the nominator that this side of the structure is the most relevant, and I find the scope relevant as a stand-alone image. There are other photos on Commons taken from this side, but I think the lightning conditions on this candidate is better than on competing images and the crop is good. Other criteria check out for me too, so its a support from my side. Concerning a set nomination, I have my reservations unless it is taken as a series on the same day, at the same distance, such that it constitutes a coherent set. Difficult however, as the lightning conditions will never be good at all sides at the same time of day. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Result: 1 support, 1 neutral
    => Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    
    • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per comments on the other photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
    Porta Nigra morgens.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Wolf im Wald on 2022-06-15 02:40 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Porta Nigra
    Reason:
    good perspective and very high sharpness IMO -- Wolf im Wald

    Symbol support vote.svg super! --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is already an existing VI for this scope of the Porta Nigra. This nomination should be withdrawn and re-nominated in MVR if the nominator wishes to contest the existing VI. --GRDN711 (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting info.svg Info Restarted the nomination because of existing VI. Please vote below. -- Wolf im Wald 02:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Symbol support vote.svg Support I prefer this one, because there are no cars in the foreground. --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree with Palauenc05. Without cars in the foreground makes this image more valuable. --GRDN711 (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support It also lacks competition from the clouds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMHO an exemplary hi-res image, certainly a VI. Congrats: 44 images ... and, as yet, I haven't detected a single stitching error, even in the multitude of leaves at right. Which software do you use? Tremendous detail - every single chisel mark visible. Quite often hi-res images with low contrast do not readily appeal to the eye when rendered at lo-res, say a few hundred pixels each edge, but this image sports enough colour and contrast to please at any resolution. -- Franz van Duns (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

    Römer[edit]

       
    Frankfurter Römer.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Der Wolf im Wald (talk) on 2022-06-15 02:50 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Römer (Frankfurt am Main)
    Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
    promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 12:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
    [reply]
    • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as not the whole of the building per the other nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
    Frankfurter Römer 2019.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Wolf im Wald on 2022-06-15 02:50 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Römer (Frankfurt am Main)
    Reason:
    good perspective, nice light and good overall quality IMO -- Wolf im Wald
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support. This image is valuable and useful too for me. But I like your other image of the Römer with front view still better. Perhaps you should spezify the scope. -- Spurzem (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hallo Lothar, ich antworte dir mal auf Deutsch. Das Problem ist, dass auch die beiden nicht rötlichen Gebäudeteile rechts im Bild zum Römer gehören. Das wusste ich damals nicht, als ich das alte Bild geschossen habe. Daher denke ich, dass das neue Bild anschaulicher ist und das alte sollte seine VI-Auszeichnung verlieren. Am Scope sollte daher wohl nichts verändert werden. Grüße und danke für dein Pro! :-) -- Wolf im Wald 19:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Restarted the nomination because of existing VI. Please vote below. -- Wolf im Wald 02:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ich verstehe den Sinn des Manövers nicht. Mir gefallen beide Bilder gut, und da sie aus unterschiedlichen Blickwinkeln aufgenommen sind, könnten beide ausgezeichnet werden. Aber mir ist es egal; ich verstehe sowieso nicht, nach welchen Kriterien hier bewertet wird, zumal es von heute auf morgen anders sein kann. Viele Grüße -- Spurzem (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ich finde das andere Bild bietet keinen Mehrwert und da es ohnehin technisch veraltet und fotografisch schlechter ist, braucht es auch keine Auszeichnung. Grüße -- Wolf im Wald 01:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The building is not fully represented in the old photo because it consists of 5 parts and the two on the right, which look slightly different in color, are cut off. In addition, the old picture does not show very well that the building facade has a bend on the left side between the first and the 2nd part of building near the blue EU flag (see [2]). -- Wolf im Wald 01:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support per "Info" above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
    To initiate a most valued review, please go to the dedicated MVR sub page.
    Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache

    All open candidates in an MVR have to have their status set as "discussed" while the review is ongoing. Only when all candidates are due for closure can the MVR be closed.

    Refer to Most valued review, the promotion rules and the instructions for closure for details.

    Pending valued image set candidates[edit]

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