Commons:Valued image candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:VIC)
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut
COM:VIC
This project page in other languages:
Skip to image nominations Skip to image nominations Most valued reviews Skip to most valued reviews Skip to set nominations Skip to set nominations
Valued image seal.svg

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

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

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
30,501 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
27,012 (88.6%) 
Undecided
  
1,566 (5.1%) 
Declined
  
1,923 (6.3%) 



New valued image nominations[edit]

   
Bijbels plantenboek van cordes staal. Locatie, De Kruidhof Buitenpost 01.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC) on 2018-04-13 05:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Corroded sculptures Biblical book of COR-TEN-Steel sculptures in the Netherlands
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question - What is "Cordes" steel? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Answer: Corten steel, also known under the brand name COR-TEN steel, is a metal alloy consisting of iron to which copper, phosphorus, silicon, nickel and chromium have been added. The strength is comparable to that of other alloy steels such as stainless steel, the calculation value is approximately 355 N / mm². The brown rust color is the most typical external characteristic. Corten steel is widely used for art and sculptures in the open air. --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:35, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment These must have been intended to rust, so they don't really fit in the corroded sculptures category, do they? 14:46, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - I don't think that's relevant, as rust - intentional or not - is per se a form of corrosion. Agnes, should the scope be changed from Cordes to Corten steel? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
    • ✓ Done. Range changed. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:53, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
What was changed? Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The description has changed to Biblical book of Cordes.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
But isn't the name of the steel Corten? Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
Category:COR-TEN-Steel sculptures in the Netherlands--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Sorry if I misunderstood anything. Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 15:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Mahe-nou-cover.jpg
Review it! (edit)
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)

Open for review.
White-backed vulture (Gyps africanus) sub adult in flight.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-14 07:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Gyps africanus (White-backed vulture) sub adult in flight
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 15:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
White-backed vulture (Gyps africanus) juvenile in flight.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-14 07:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Gyps africanus (White-backed vulture) juvenile in flight
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 15:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
White-backed vulture (Gyps africanus) landing composite.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-14 07:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Gyps africanus (White-backed vulture) landing (composite of two images)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 15:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
BijouEgyptien MHNT.ETH.2012.24.27.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2018-04-14 08:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Art of Siwa-Wide, finely decorated bracelet
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 15:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Actophilornis africanus MHNT.ZOO.2010.11.2.23.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2018-04-14 08:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Actophilornis africanus egg of (African jacana)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 15:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Caecum semitrachea 01.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2018-04-14 16:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Caecum semitrachea, shell
Open for review.
Langia zenzeroides nawai MHNT CUT 2010 0 207 Japan male dorsal.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-15 05:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Langia zenzeroides nawai Mounted specimen male dorsal

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 08:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
San Giacomo dall'Orio (Venice) - Eucarestia adorata dai quattro evangelisti (1575) - Palma il giovane.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-15 05:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Eucharist adored by the four evangelists by Palma il giovane in San Giacomo dall'Orio (Venice)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 08:16, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
Augustins - Portrait de Bernard Lange - Antoine Etex RA 895 B.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-15 05:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of Bernard Lange by Antoine Etex, Musée des Augustins, de Toulouse
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Useful, best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
Tetrao urogallus aquitanicus MHNT.ZOO.2010.11.3.8.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2018-04-15 07:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Tetrao urogallus egg
Open for review.
White-browed sparrow-weaver (Plocepasser mahali pectoralis) male.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-15 18:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Plocepasser mahali pectoralis (White-browed sparrow-weaver) male
Open for review.
White-browed sparrow-weaver (Plocepasser mahali ansorgei) female.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-15 18:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Plocepasser mahali ansorgei (White-browed sparrow-weaver) female
Open for review.
Spotted hyena (Crocuta crocuta).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-15 18:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Crocuta crocuta (Spotted hyena)
Open for review.
Synagoga, Nový Jičín 07 (crop).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
T.Bednarz (talk) on 2018-04-15 19:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Synagogue in Nový Jičín
Open for review.
Langia zenzeroides nawai MHNT CUT 2010 0 207 Japan male ventral.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-16 05:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Langia zenzeroides nawai mounted specimen male ventral
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support useful. You need to alter gallery to indicate first batch of photos is ssp zenzeroides. Charles (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done thanks --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
San Giacomo dall'Orio (Venice) - La predicazione del Battista (1570) - Francesco Bassano.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-16 05:08 (UTC)
Scope:
The preaching of John the Baptist by Francesco Bassano (II) in San Giacomo dall'Orio (Venice)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
Augustin - Chloris caressée par Zéphir - James Pradier D 1849 1.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-16 05:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Chloris caressée par Zéphir by James Pradier - Musée des Augustins de Toulouse
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Used, useful and best in scope for me -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 17:44, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
Lagopus muta islandorum MHNT.ZOO.2010.11.4.1.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2018-04-16 06:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Lagopus muta islandorum eggs

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 19:36, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
HarryTruman.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Peulle (talk) on 2018-04-16 08:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Harry Truman portrait painting.
Used in:
Extensive use on Wikipedia.
Open for review.
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.
Figueres Teatre Jardi.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2018-04-16 14:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Cine Teatre Jardí in Figueres, Spain (view NW)
Open for review.
African bush elephants (Loxodonta africana) female with six-week-old baby.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-16 16:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Loxodonta africana (African bush elephants) female with six-week-old baby

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The image is not placed in the right category : Loxodonta africana (adults with juveniles) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC) ✓ Done I spent ages creating new categories and moving dozens of images into them then forgot to do mine! 16:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC) Charles (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
African bush elephant (Loxodonta africana) baby 6 weeks.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-16 16:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Loxodonta africana (African bush elephant) baby 6 weeks old

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The image is not placed in the right category : Loxodonta africana (juvenile) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:05, 17 April 2018 (UTC)*✓ Done Charles (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
African bush elephant (Loxodonta africana) spraying water.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-16 16:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Loxodonta africana (African bush elephant) spraying water from trunk

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The image is not placed in the right category : Loxodonta africana in water --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC) ✓ Done Charles (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Open for review.
Renato Ballardini 2015.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jaqen (talk) on 2018-04-16 17:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Renato Ballardini
Used in:
de:Renato Ballardini, fr:Renato Ballardini, it:Renato Ballardini,
Open for review.
B.J. Elder - Aquila Basket Trento 2012.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jaqen (talk) on 2018-04-16 17:05 (UTC)
Scope:
B.J. Elder
Used in:
fr:B. J. Elder, it:B.J. Elder, d:Q3631677
Open for review.
Alain de Cadenet 1975.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lothar Spurzem (talk) on 2018-04-16 17:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Alain de Cadenet portrait, profile picture
Used in:
de:Alain de Cadenet, en:Alain de Cadenet, fr:Alain de Cadenet, pl:Alain de Cadenet, sv:Alain de Cadenet
Open for review.
Kaple Petra a Pavla, Antošovice.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
T.Bednarz (talk) on 2018-04-16 19:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Antošovice, Saints Peter and Paul chapel
Open for review.
Caecum glabellum 01.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2018-04-16 19:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Caecum glabellum, shell
Open for review.
Yew Tree House, Halewood 1.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-04-16 22:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Yew Tree House, Halewood
Used in:
en:wp:Listed buildings in Halewood
Open for review.
Macroglossum insipida papuanum MHNT CUT 2010 0 217 - Kuranda Queensland - male dorsal.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-17 05:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Macroglossum insipida papuanum Mounted specimen male dorsal
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Usefull --Ercé (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
San Giacomo dall'Orio (Venice) - Agonia di Cristo nell’orto con committente (fine secolo XVI) del Tizianello.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-17 05:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Agony of Christ in the garden with client by Tizianello in San Giacomo dall'Orio (Venice)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Usefull --Ercé (talk) 06:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
Augustins - Portrait du peintre espagnol Matías Moreno - Charles Durand dit Carolus-Duran P1652.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-17 05:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of the Spanish painter Matías Moreno by Carolus-Duran. Musée des Augustins, de Toulouse
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Usefull --Ercé (talk) 07:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
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.
Open for review.
Lagopus muta rupestris MHNT.ZOO.2010.11.4.5.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2018-04-17 07:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Lagopus muta rupestris egg
Open for review.
Comblain la Tour The rocks.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
PJDespa (talk) on 2018-04-17 09:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Rocks of Comblain-la-Tour, Hamoir, Wallonia, Belgium
Used in:
List of protected heritage sites in Hamoir
Open for review.
Jeanne Guionie, de l'Opéra comique (cropped).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Yann (talk) on 2018-04-17 14:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Jeanne Guionie
Reason:
French soprano (1879-1976). Studio shot, so no geolocation. -- Yann (talk)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - My initial reaction is that the other two photos of her in the category (including the other version of this photo) are probably better in scope, though the ideal thing would be a good digital restoration. I'd like to consider your argument, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
    • This one is high resolution, and grayscale, as it is a black and white picture. However I could make a second nomination. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
Desert elephant (Loxodonta africana) spraying sand.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-17 16:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Loxodonta africana (Desert elephant) spraying sand while guarding young
Open for review.
African hawk eagles (Aquila spilogaster) 2.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-17 12:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Aquila spilogaster (African hawk eagles) pair, showing back feathers

Previous Review undecided


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

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

  • Voltmetro, please reread the scope. It is indeed a pair, and in fact more specific than that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
    • There is an category Aquila spilogaster with description, not category connented to Pairs of Aquila spilogaster. Voltmetro 10:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I agree with Charles that this is a useful scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Voltmetro: What we're judging here is not the linked category but the scope, as shown in the "scope" field. You are basing your vote on irrelevant criteria, and therefore, I think it's not appropriate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
    • All that wrote in scope field must connect with category but I don't think that "pair" can relate to category of birds species, sorry. The mere mention of that is shown in the photo pair of birds is not enough to relate "pair" to species. Voltmetro 19:44, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't understand what you mean to say. Can you restate your remark some other way? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:35, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It's not scope, it's simple description. It could be a scope if there was an article about pairs of birds but I've never seen any page like that. So this scope is meaningless and probably never used in future. I don't see any reason to promote this picture to VIC, it maybe a quality image because of a great composition and the photographer's ability, but really unusable for VIC in my opinion. Sorry. Voltmetro 09:23, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - It's a pity that no-one has decided to vote so as to break this unfortunate tie. I realize that there are some people who refuse to vote for any photo at VIC unless it's already used in a Wikipedia article - an irrelevant criterion, but no-one can be forced to vote. It would be truly unfortunate for a photo to lose out on being promoted because of a misunderstanding of the difference between a Commons category and a VI scope, though, don't you think? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose =>
undecided. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
Dusky sunbird (Cinnyris fuscus) male drinking.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-03-23 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. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 15:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Church of Notre-Dame du Gua in Aubin 01.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tournasol7 (talk) on 2018-04-17 18:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of Notre-Dame du Gua in Aubin, eastern exposure
Used in:
fr:Liste des monuments historiques de l'Aveyron
Open for review.
Macroglossum insipida papuanum MHNT CUT 2010 0 217 - Kuranda Queensland - male ventral.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-18 04:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Macroglossum insipida papuanum Mounted specimen male ventral
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Usefull --Ercé (talk) 06:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
Chiesa di San Salvador - chiostro.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-18 04:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of San Salvatore (Venice) - The first cloister
Open for review.
Augustins - Diane - marble - Alexandre Falguière RA 959.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-04-18 04:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Diana by Alexandre Falguière Marble

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

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why not, the caption is sufficiently explicit. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:05, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Best in scope --Ercé (talk) 15:11, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fine 4 me. --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review.
Tetrastes bonasia rupestris MHNT.ZOO.2010.11.4.11.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2018-04-18 06:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Tetrastes bonasia egg
Open for review.
BijouEgyptien MHNT.ETH.2012.24.31.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2018-04-18 06:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Art of Siwa-Triple bracelet
Open for review.



Pending Most valued review candidates[edit]

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.

Lenbachhaus: Foster extension, worm's-eye view[edit]

   
Lenbachhaus Munich Foster Extension, March 2018.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Martin Falbisoner (talk) on 2018-03-31 10:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Lenbachhaus: Foster extension, worm's-eye view
Used in:
de:Städtische Galerie im Lenbachhaus
Reason:
only image in scope -- Martin Falbisoner (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Nice picture, used. Voltmetro 14:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment But I'm not sure this justifies a scope. Charles (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 15:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Lenbachhaus Munich Foster Extension, March 2018 -2.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Martin Falbisoner (talk) on 2018-04-16 06:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Lenbachhaus: Foster extension, worm's-eye view
Used in:
de:Städtische Galerie im Lenbachhaus
Reason:
The ongoing discussion at FPC made clear that this alternative (which is also likely to be promoted to FP has been promoted to FP) is the superior and thus also more valuable image. -- Martin Falbisoner (talk)
Open for review.

Canis mesomelas mesomelas (Black-backed jackal)[edit]

   
Canis mesomelas.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lycaon (talk) on 2009-01-23 16:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Canis mesomelas (Black-backed Jackal)
Used in:
ar:ابن آوى أسود الظهر, bg:Черногръб чакал, da:Skaberaksjakal, de:Schabrackenschakal, en:Black-backed Jackal, en:Canis, es:Canis mesomelas, fi:Koirat, fr:Chacal à chabraque, gl:Chacal, he:תן שחור, hu:Panyókás sakál, io:Shakalo, it:Canis mesomelas, ja:セグロジャッカル, ko:검은등자칼, ko:자칼, la:Thos, lt:Juodnugaris šakalas, nl:Roofdieren, nl:Zadeljakhals, pl:Canini, pl:Szakal czaprakowy, pt:Chacal-de-dorso-negro, ru:Чепрачный шакал, species:Canis mesomelas, sv:Schabrakschakal, tr:Kara sırtlı çakal, tr:Namib Çölü, uk:Чепрачний шакал, zh:黑背胡狼
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Best pic in the cat, criteria fulfilled. --Eusebius (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Eusebius (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 15:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
Black-backed jackal (Canis mesomelas mesomelas).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2018-04-17 16:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Canis mesomelas mesomelas (Black-backed jackal)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support clearly better --Martin Falbisoner (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I disagree. Technical quality at 100% zoom is certainly better, but that does not matter at the 480px review size. I don't see what would make this one better from a VI point of view. The fur at the back looks unusually messy as if s/he's just come out of a fight. The paws are not visible in this one. --El Grafo (talk) 07:28, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
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]