Commons:Valued image candidates

Skip to image nominations

Skip to most valued reviews

Skip to set nominations

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

Single images can be proposed for valued image (VI) status. 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.

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 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. -- ~~~~`	Comment My comment. -- Example	You have a comment.
`*{{Info}} My information. -- ~~~~`	Info My information. -- Example	You have information.
`*{{Neutral}} Reason for neutral vote. -- ~~~~`	Neutral Reason for neutral vote. -- Example	You are uncertain or wish to record a neutral vote.
`*{{Oppose}} Reason for opposing vote. -- ~~~~`	Oppose Reason for opposing vote. -- Example	You think that the candidate fails one or more of the six mandatory criteria.
`*{{Question}} My question. -- ~~~~`	Question My question. -- Example	You have a question.
`*{{Support}} Reason for supporting. -- ~~~~`	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

51,791 closed valued image candidates
Closed as		Nominations
Promoted	46,477 (89.7%)
Undecided	2,879 (5.6%)
Declined	2,435 (4.7%)

New valued image nominations[edit]

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Günther Frager (talk) on 2023-06-03 18:47 (UTC)
Scope: Bicicletas by Annemarie Heinrich
Support Nice photo by a noted photographer; could be useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Support --GRDN711 (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2023-06-04 05:52 (UTC)
Scope: Drilliola turrella, shell
Support Useful and used --Ercé (talk) 06:41, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by: Ercé (talk) on 2023-06-04 06:38 (UTC)
Scope: Turdus torquatus eggs (ring ouzel ssp torquatus) eggs
Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by: Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2023-06-04 11:12 (UTC)
Scope: Porte des gendarmes (Versailles)
Best in Scope and useful -- Spurzem (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by: Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-06-04 21:08 (UTC)
Scope: Porsche 911 Carrera Turbo Nr. 1 - left front view
Used in: en:Porsche 930
Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by: Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-06-04 21:18 (UTC)
Scope: Volkswagen Tiguan R - left front view
Used in: de:Volkswagen R, de:VW Tiguan II
Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by: Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-06-04 21:20 (UTC)
Scope: Bentley Bentayga S - right rear view
Used in: de:Bentley Bentayga
Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: PalauanLibertarian (talk) on 2023-06-05 01:55 (UTC)
Scope: Category:Gostra
I don't see how this can be judged more valuable than the other images? Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-05 05:09 (UTC)
Scope: Spialia sertorius – mounted specimen - male dorsal
Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2023 (UTC) = red underwing skipper - could be on en wiki Charlesjsharp (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] THANKS. It's in these details that I see 1) that I'm getting old and 2) that I have friends... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-05 05:10 (UTC)
Scope: Autoretrat - Julio González - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya
Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-05 05:12 (UTC)
Scope: Monument to Benedetto Valmarana
Best in Scope--A1Cafel (talk) 08:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2023-06-05 05:21 (UTC)
Scope: Donax trunculus ssp trunculus (Truncate Donax), right valve
Info See also here --Llez (talk) 05:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Support Useful and used --Ercé (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC) =Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Pierre André ^(talk) on 2023-06-05 10:00 (UTC)
Scope: Watt's parallel motion, view in International City of Lace and Fashion of Calais
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Ercé (talk) on 2023-06-05 13:51 (UTC)
Scope: Turdus torquatus eggs (ring ouzel ssp alpestris) eggs
Support Useful & used.
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: GRDN711 (talk) on 2023-06-05 21:16 (UTC)
Scope: KL Saltfjord (ship, 2011) - IMO 9470478 - left (port side) view
Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2023-06-06 04:36 (UTC)
Scope: Vissersmonument, Moddergat 1 of 5 parts.
Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-06 05:03 (UTC)
Scope: Thymelicus lineola – mounted specimen - male ventral
Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-06 05:04 (UTC)
Scope: L'escultor - Antoni Fabrés - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya
Best in Scope, useful and used --LexKurochkin (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-06 05:05 (UTC)
Scope: Lamium galeobdolon subsp. argentatum
Support Beautiful image, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2023-06-06 06:11 (UTC)
Scope: Donax trunculus ssp trunculus (Truncate Donax), left valve
Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: A1Cafel (talk) on 2023-06-06 09:00 (UTC)
Scope: Structure of tropical cyclones
Comment The file description, "diagram of a hurricane," is more descriptive. At any rate, "diagram" and not "structure" should be in the scope, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Pierre André ^(talk) on 2023-06-06 10:09 (UTC)
Scope: Skein winders in Cité internationale de la Dentelle et de la Mode de Calais, Hauts-de-France
Support. Good and useful image -- Spurzem (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-07 04:56 (UTC)
Scope: Autoretrat - Joaquim Sorolla 1897 - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya
Best in Scope, useful and used --LexKurochkin (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Support --GRDN711 (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-07 04:58 (UTC)
Scope: Saint-Cirq-Lapopie, la place du Carol - Henri Martin - Musée de Cahors
Best in Scope, useful and used --LexKurochkin (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Info Nice one. Thank you! --LexKurochkin (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-07 04:59 (UTC)
Scope: *South West well head in Campo san Geremia* to Venice.**
Support. Useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2023-06-07 05:52 (UTC)
Scope: Duplicaria spectabilis (Graceful Auger), shell
Best in Scope --GRDN711 (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: GRDN711 (talk) on 2023-06-07 14:26 (UTC)
Scope: Dune (ship, 1963) - ENI 06003820 - back (stern) view
Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-06-07 14:23 (UTC)
Scope: Erynnis tages baynesi (Dingy skipper) male, dorsal
Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-06-07 14:27 (UTC)
Scope: Erynnis tages baynesi (Dingy skipper) female dorsal
Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Pierre André ^(talk) on 2023-06-07 21:43 (UTC)
Scope: Plans-relief of Calais (CCI-1904), Cité internationale de la Dentelle et de la Mode de Calais
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: ⍨PLib^🗣️ on 2023-06-08 01:47 (UTC)
Scope: Aerial photographs of Chalki
Comment We must add a geocoding in caption. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-08 05:00 (UTC)
Scope: Ocell de golfa - Luis Masriera - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya
The only one in scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-08 05:01 (UTC)
Scope: Le Bassin avec la petite porte à Marquayrol - photogravure - Musée de Cahors
The only one in scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-08 05:02 (UTC)
Scope: Madonna of Red Cherubs by Giovanni Bellini - Gallerie dell'Accademia in Venice
Please check category. --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Done Oops Thanks...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Satdeep Gill (talk) on 2023-06-08 05:27 (UTC)
Scope: Dendrocitta formosae himalayana (Grey treepie) sitting on ground
Comment I have no idea if this is the only ssp himalayana but it doesn't show the tail well. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2023-06-08 06:02 (UTC)
Scope: Terebra argus (Argus Auger), shell
Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2023-06-08 09:34 (UTC)
Scope: 25 Pfennig "Notgeld" banknote of Torgau, Germany.
Support. Good and useful -- Spurzem (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2023-06-08 09:36 (UTC)
Scope: 50 Pfennig "Notgeld" banknote of Torgau, Germany.
Support. Good and useful -- Spurzem (talk) 10:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2023-06-08 09:28 (UTC)
Scope: Wayside cross (1788) in Tavel (Gard), France.
Support. Good image, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-06-08 20:55 (UTC)
Scope: Polyommatus icarus mariscolore (Common blue) female dorsal
Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-06-08 20:56 (UTC)
Scope: Polyommatus icarus mariscolore (Common blues) mating (male above)
Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-09 05:09 (UTC)
Scope: Etude pour - Dans la lumière - Henri Martin - Musée de Cahors
Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-09 05:13 (UTC)
Scope: Euphorbia verrucosa - Inflorescences
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-09 05:13 (UTC)
Scope: Santi Apostoli (Venice) - Byzantine-style Venetian artist, deposition and burial of Christ, beginning of the 14th century
Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2023-06-09 05:43 (UTC)
Scope: Donax trunculus ssp. adriaticus (Truncate Donax), right valve
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: GRDN711 (talk) on 2023-06-09 08:56 (UTC)
Scope: Dovorian (ship, 2006) - MMSI 235037385 – right (starboard) side
Reason: Best image the starboard side of this ship by name. -- GRDN711 (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2023-06-09 16:52 (UTC)
Scope: 10 Pfennig "Notgeld" banknote of Altenkirchen (Westerwald), RV: Schloss Crottorf.
Support. Good and useful -- Spurzem (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2023-06-09 16:48 (UTC)
Scope: 50 Pfennig "Notgeld" banknote of Würzburg, RV: Walther von der Vogelweide.
Support. Good and useful -- Spurzem (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2023-06-09 16:40 (UTC)
Scope: Wayside cross (17^th century) in the former washhouse of Perl-Sehndorf, Germany.
Support. The only in scope, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by: —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) on 2023-06-09 17:08 (UTC)
Scope: Impossible Whopper
Used in: w:en:Whopper, w:en:List of Burger King products, w:en:Impossible Whopper
Open for review.

Pending Most valued review candidates[edit]

Grasshopper[edit]

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Eusebius (talk) on 2008-11-17 14:42 (UTC)
Scope: Anacridium aegyptium (Egyptian grasshopper)
Support Fulfills criteria. I prefer the natural light. Lycaon (talk) 07:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply] 1. Grasshopper November 2008-3.jpg: 0 2. Acrididae grasshopper-2.jpg: +1 <-- => Image:Grasshopper November 2008-3.jpg: Declined. Image:Acrididae grasshopper-2.jpg: Promoted. <-- --Eusebius (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply] Oppose inferior in resolution --Milseburg (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Support Excellent for me! Very good image und very often used -- Spurzem (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Weak oppose Less detailed --LexKurochkin (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Support This is much more detailed at review size. We are supposed to be judging these images in terms of how they would be used in articles, which is as thumbnails. "Inferior in resolution" is not a valid reason to oppose a file that is larger and more detailed at review size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-10-16 11:37 (UTC)
Scope: Anacridium aegyptium (Egyptian grasshopper)
Comment Why are there two colors for one specy ? --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC) Comment This is very common for grasshoppers. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] Support Superior in resolution. --Milseburg (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Support Better resolution, more details shown --LexKurochkin (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Oppose Less detailed at review size, which is all that matters at VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] I just notices this comment Ikan Kekek. The guidelines say "The image must look good on-screen at the review size" but they don't say that is the moist important criteria or that is what matters. Looking good at review size is a qualifying criteria, that's all. I've no issue with the oppose, just the reason. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Well, since the entire purpose of VIC is to select images that look best in online articles, it's obvious that we are not choosing them primarily with regard to factors that are relevant to QIC and not to their appearance in online articles. See Commons:Valued image value: "To become a valued image (VI) or a valued image set (VIS) the candidate must be the most valuable illustration of all images on Commons which fall within the scope of the nomination. Value is judged on the basis of the candidate's potential for online use within other Wikimedia projects. Usability in printed form is not considered." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Isn’t this a featured picture though? The quality and detail looks pretty good to me… what is it about the detail that is at issue? just trying to understand the objection. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] And I don't understand your question. The other photo has a much larger grasshopper at review size, so more details are more easily visible. Comparing the images at full size is not the point of VIC. These images are judged on the basis of their usefulness as thumbnails in online articles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Unidentified Photographer statue at the Barracks Arch, Perth, Western Australia[edit]

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: LexKurochkin (talk) on 2023-03-23 17:20 (UTC)
Scope: Unidentified Photographer statue at the Barracks Arch (Perth, Western Australia)
Used in: List of public art in Western Australia
Comment the blown-out sky is too much distracting here. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Oppose per Sebring12Hrs and also per my comments on the other image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: LexKurochkin (talk) on 2023-03-23 17:21 (UTC)
Scope: Unidentified Photographer statue at the Barracks Arch (Perth, Western Australia)
The blown-out sky is less distracting here. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Support per Sebring12Hrs and also because I find the angle somewhat better for this photo. Neither photo is perfect, but I do think this one is better. (By the way, the status is still "discussed" until the most valuable review has been decided.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

agouti[edit]

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2019-08-05 09:38 (UTC)
Scope: Dasyprocta punctata (Central American agouti)
Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply] `Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)`Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-03-24 15:31 (UTC)
Scope: Dasyprocta punctata (Central American agouti)
Comment We already have a VI in this scope and I see at list one more image of comparable quality, and both are used. Should we start MVR for this scope? Comment Yes it is better to go through MVR. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Best in Scope now and used --LexKurochkin (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Black-cowled oriole[edit]

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Lycaon (talk) on 2010-05-08 10:29 (UTC)
Scope: Icterus prosthemelas (Black-cowled Oriole)
Reason: Only image on Commons and duly geo-referenced. -- Lycaon (talk)
Support all criteria met --George Chernilevsky ^talk 14:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply] Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Lycaon (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply] Oppose There are better images in the same scope. Low quality. --LexKurochkin (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Oppose Meanwhile inferior in this scope. --Milseburg (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Oppose Better pictures of this bird backside available. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-04-12 17:29 (UTC)
Scope: Icterus prosthemelas prosthemelas (Black-cowled oriole) showing back feathers
current VIC for image showing chest feathers Best in Scope, useful and used. Significantly better than the current VI as of 12.04.2023 --[[User:\|LexKurhockin]] (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Support Significantly better than the current VI --Milseburg (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Support agree with the others: better picture for this scope. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Comment Charles - suggest scope of this nomination match current VI with excess description "showing back feathers" dropped. --GRDN711 (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] "showing back feathers" needed as there is another scope with chest feathers GRDN711. The importance of these scopes is demonstrated on final post on my Wikipedia talk page Oppose @Charlesjsharp: @LexKurochkin: @Milseburg: @Achim Raschka: Charles – I did not see reference to another scope with chest species for this bird and you did not provide a link. Either way, it is not germane to the issue here. Requirements for Value Image scopes are defined in COM:VIS and those are the guidelines to that define the validity of VI scopes which are an essential part of the VI rating. You have a good quality image that is of better quality than the one you are competing against in this MVR and would vote for it if the scopes were the same. Why have you made your VI scope too narrow with the addition of "showing back feathers” as unnecessary description? If you think it is important detail, it should go in the image description. Why are you comparing an image you have identified as sub-species to an image with a higher taxonomy level of species? Per COM:VIS – “If several species are impossible to distinguish visually, then the scope should be at a higher taxonomy level.” --GRDN711 (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)--GRDN711 (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] I will try to stay calm. Please look at this current VIC. I repeat: The importance of these scopes is demonstrated on final post on my Wikipedia talk page. 21:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Comment Charles While being calm is a welcome state of mind, clarity on your VI scope is needed here. Are you stating that the yellow back feathers in this image support that this bird is of the Icterus prosthemelas prosthemelas sub-species as opposed to the I. p. praecox sub-species? Can you really compare it to the other MVR image VI with scope of Icterus prosthemelas species? IMHO the extra description of feather coloration on chest or back is good information to support a VI nomination as I. p. prosthemelas sub-species (already has a VI), but it should not be part of the scope. --GRDN711 (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Info I do not see any problem with having rather detailed scopes for birds or any other subject. It is better than too general scope IMO. --LexKurochkin (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Comment Hello LexKurochkin Overly detailed scopes tend to take the form of unique description that makes the image appear more valuable than it really is to Commons and can create multiple VI ratings for images of the same bird. Overly detailed scopes are specifically discouraged per COM:VIS. “Note that scope is not a simple description of your image. Rather, it defines a generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example.” There is good reading in COM:VIS on too wide, too narrow (or overly descriptive), and just right scopes. Further good reading is at COM:VIS Domain-specific scope guidelines for animals (includes birds) where the “General rule is: one scope per species…”. It goes on to allow identifiable sub-species and sub-scopes for identifiable male/female (fledgling, immature etc.) characteristics and specific behavioral aspects (nesting, flying etc.). All of these added sub-scope options are fine and in theory, it may be possible to have a dozen VI ratings for a given bird or animal. IMHO when more description beyond these guidelines is allowed, the scope becomes too narrow and overly wordy. I have no problem with this extra information on chest and back feathers being presented as a reason to support the VI nomination (one on the non-mandatory fields in the nomination) for identification of this bird as representing a specific species or sub-species scope. --GRDN711 (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Oppose this MVR nomination as the scope is not the same as the scope of the existing image being compared to. The other image (definitely not as good) has the current VI rating for the entire species. The nominated MVR (the better image) has a different and invalid sub-scope. As stated above per COM:VIS, acceptable sub-scopes for animals (birds) must feature a unique aspect of behavior. Feather color and placement is a function of the definition of the species no matter what angle the bird is viewed from and does not represent a valid sub-scope. It would not be a Black-cowled oriole if the feathers weren't colored in a defined manner, front and back. --GRDN711 (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

One Vanderbilt[edit]

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: —Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2021-04-26 22:39 (UTC)
Scope: One Vanderbilt, New York
Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] `Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)`Reply[reply] Oppose Not as good as the other candidate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Oppose Better photos are available. Lorax (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: —Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2023-04-16 18:27 (UTC)
Scope: One Vanderbilt
Support A clearer view. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Support overall better than the other option Lorax (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Violet patched skipper[edit]

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2019-06-16 19:29 (UTC)
Scope: Monca crispinus (Violet-patched skipper) underside
Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply] `Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 06:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)`Reply[reply] Oppose leg and 1 antenna being out of focus is distracting. Lorax (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-04-23 14:48 (UTC)
Scope: Monca crispinus (Violet-patched skipper) underside
Support better lighting and better control of depth of field than alternative Lorax (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

war memorial[edit]

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Gzen92 ^[discuter] on 2021-05-11 11:27 (UTC)
Scope: Monument aux morts de Fortschwihr
Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply] `Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)`Reply[reply] Support Clearer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Gzen92 (talk) on 2023-04-24 15:28 (UTC)
Scope: Monument aux morts de Fortschwihr
Comment Fuller side view. Gzen92 (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Oppose Too much shadow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Oppose Per Ikan. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Central Park Tower[edit]

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: —Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2022-01-09 17:44 (UTC)
Scope: Central Park Tower - view from 30 Rockefeller Plaza
Best in Scope. Very good image, useful and often used -- Spurzem (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] `Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)`Reply[reply] Support Best in scope to me. Much more details and there aren't CAs on this one. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Comment At low resolution, this image works best of the three because the entire building is more clearly and more evenly separated from the background.--Cartoffel (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: —Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2023-05-01 20:16 (UTC)
Scope: Central Park Tower - view from 30 Rockefeller Plaza
Reason: Some minor finishing touches were put on the building since I took the current VI back in April 2021. I have two versions here with slightly different lighting. -- —Percival Kestreltail (talk)
Oppose Low details, and a lot of CAs. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 09:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: —Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2023-05-01 20:17 (UTC)
Scope: Central Park Tower - view from 30 Rockefeller Plaza
Comment This is the best of the three, but there are other candidates, and I am not up to looking through all the alternatives right now and might not be in the future. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Comment @Ikan Kekek: Fair, I feel the same way about many large categories. But from what I can tell, most of the other files in this category show the building in its unfinished state (you can tell by the brighter blue protective coating on the glass) and/or looking up from a low angle. The best alternatives to my photos is probably Central Park Tower 2022.jpg or a crop of Midtown Manhattan from Weehawken September 2021 001.jpg. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Comment Also, I wouldn't be against adding separate scopes for different angles. The building looks similar but not completely the same on all sides. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Comment Yeah, I thought of that, too. That might be a good thing to do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Highland rubyspot[edit]

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Lycaon (talk) on 2009-09-18 05:43 (UTC)
Scope: Hetaerina cruentata, male
Support All criteria for a VI --Cesco77 (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply] Support - Only image of high quality displaying the Hetaerina cruentata. Tiptoety ^talk 21:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply] `Result: 2 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Yann (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)`Reply[reply] Oppose Much less detailed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-05-11 15:22 (UTC)
Scope: Hetaerina cruentata (Highland rubyspot) male
Support Much more detailed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Support Better lighting makes it easier to see details. Lorax (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Maoricolpus roseus manukauensis[edit]

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2013-10-22 06:45 (UTC)
Scope: Maoricolpus roseus manukauensis (Rosy Screw Snail), Shell
Support : useful. --JLPC (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply] `Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)`Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2023-05-20 08:13 (UTC)
Scope: Maoricolpus roseus manukauensis (Rosy Screw Snail), Shell
Reason: Better specimen in a better photographic quality. -- Llez (talk)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Symphytum ×uplandicum (Russian Comfrey)[edit]

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Slaunger (talk) on 2009-06-03 21:32 (UTC)
Scope: Symphytum ×uplandicum (Russian Comfrey)
Reason: It is the only image on Commons which shows the entire plant. Parentage: S. asperum × S. officinale. In Denmark, it was previously used as food for pigs, thus it can now be found in clusters here and there. The black roots should be sweet and edible - a property which is also hinted to from the Danish vernacular name, "Foder-Kulsukker", which means "Coal sugar for eating". -- Slaunger (talk)
Support OK for me. Lycaon (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply] `Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Yann (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)`Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 18:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by: Cartoffel (talk) on 2023-06-06 10:45 (UTC)
Scope: Symphytum ×uplandicum (Russian Comfrey)
Reason: I think a cropped version of VI Symphytum xuplandicum plant 2009-05-20.jpg is clearly preferable for reasons of image composition. This here is a somewhat conservative crop and maybe an even more aggressive crop could be even better. -- Cartoffel (talk)
Comment Symphytum uplandicum x Bocking 14.jpg also seems nice enough and very useful, but shows a very different stage of growth. -- Cartoffel (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

To initiate a most valued review, please go to the dedicated MVR sub page.