Commons:Valued image candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to 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 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
34,332 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
30,590 (89.1%) 
Undecided
  
1,721 (5%) 
Declined
  
2,021 (5.9%) 



New valued image nominations[edit]

   
Meropenem 1.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2019-03-21 14:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Meropenem vial
Used in:
en:Meropenem
Open for review.
Magnesium Sulfate IV 2.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2019-03-21 14:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Magnesium Sulfate intravenous solution
Used in:
en:Magnesium sulfate (medical use)
Open for review.
Coralliophila rubrococcinea 01.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2019-03-21 22:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Coralliophila rubrococcinea, shell
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful, there is a lot of places where this could be used. --BoothSift 23:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 22:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Rock at Los Angeles County Museum of Art.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
BoothSift on 2019-03-21 23:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Levitated Mass at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art by Michael Heizer
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There are some points that can be improved for the scope. You have to put the image in the 'Levitated Mass' category. It is the title of the work; it is necessary that it appears in the scope with the name of the author: Michael Heizer. It is possible that there is a copyright on this work, I do not know the law of California. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@Archaeodontosaurus: ✓ Done--BoothSift 03:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Ok for the modified scope. Beware of over-categorization. The problem that remains is the legal aspect: it seems that this work is under copyright. it is possible that we have to give up all the images in this category. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
@Archaeodontosaurus: I have done some research. The kind of art that Levitated Mass falls under is currently still being debated whether it falls under copyright as it is site-specific. Should I contact the Los Angeles County Museum of Art?--BoothSift 17:21, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I asked the question to an administrator who seems to know the problem. Let's wait. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
@Archaeodontosaurus: User:Christian Ferrer nominated the image for deletion, you can take a look at the discussion, but's currently headed towards not copyrighted. --BoothSift 23:47, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Open for review.
Sphingulus mus MHNT CUT 2010 0 317 Ussuri, Gornotajosnoje, Russia, male ventral.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-03-22 06:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Sphingulus mus mounted specimen male ventral

Symbol support vote.svg Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Open for review.
Carcassonne - Façade de la gare.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-03-22 06:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Gare de Carcassonne- Facade of the station seen from the Marengo bridge
Open for review.
Bemberg Fondation Toulouse - La Lettre (vers 1787) Louis-Léopold Boilly 52.7x45 Inv.1118.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-03-22 06:06 (UTC)
Scope:
La Lettre by Louis-Léopold Boilly, Fondation Bemberg, Toulouse
Open for review.
Acavus haemastoma melanotragus 01.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2019-03-22 20:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Acavus haemastoma melanotragus, shell
Open for review.
Kapelle St. Jakob-Caplutta Sogn Giacun. Breil-Brigels (actm) 15.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2019-03-23 05:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Kapelle St. Jakob/Caplutta Sogn Giacun Mural in the chapel.

Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:35, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Open for review.
Sphinx formosana MHNT CUT 2010 0 317 Yilan County, Taiwan, male dorsal.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-03-23 06:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Sphinx formosana mounted specimen male dorsal
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful and used. --BoothSift 20:40, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Open for review.
Carcassonne - Chapelle des Dominicaines.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-03-23 06:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Chapelle des Dominicaines de Carcassonne, facade

Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Open for review.
Beaux-Arts de Carcassonne - Jupiter et Danaë - Nicolas Bertin Joconde04400000588.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-03-23 06:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Jupiter et Danaë (Jupiter and Danaë) by Nicolas Bertin, Musée des Beaux-Arts de Carcassonne
Open for review.
Shop of Dried fish (12).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rocky Masum (talk) on 2019-03-23 14:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Dried fish shop in Cox's Bazar, Chittagong

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose The scope is too specific -- Basile Morin (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Open for review.
Gemophos viverratus 01.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2019-03-23 20:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Gemophos viverratus, shell
Open for review.
The Saddle Club, Prenton 201903.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2019-03-23 20:59 (UTC)
Scope:
The Saddle Club, Prenton
Used in:
en:Listed buildings in Prenton
Open for review.
Sphinx formosana MHNT CUT 2010 0 317 Yilan County, Taiwan, male ventral.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-03-24 06:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Sphinx formosana mounted specimen male ventral
Open for review.
Saint-Sulpice-la-Pointe (Tarn) - Eglise Notre-Dame - L'orgue de tribune.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-03-24 06:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint-Sulpice-la-Pointe - Eglise Notre-Dame - Gallery organ

Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Open for review.
Bemberg Fondation - La Table de la mer, Villefranche-sur-Mer 1920 - Henri Le sidaner 61.4x50.2.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-03-24 06:11 (UTC)
Scope:
La Table de la mer (The table of the sea) by Henri Le Sidaner, Fondation Bemberg Toulouse

Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Fixed artist's name in scope - last name needs to be capitalized. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Useful, nice painting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Open for review.
Berlin 50 Pfennig 1921 Stralauer Fischzug.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2019-03-24 09:26 (UTC)
Scope:
50 Pfennig "Notgeld" banknote (emergency money) of Berlin (1921), district Friedrichshain.
Used in:
Money of Germany, de:Stralauer Fischzug
Open for review.
Berlin 50 Pfennig 1921 Köpenick.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2019-03-24 09:22 (UTC)
Scope:
50 Pfennig "Notgeld" banknote (emergency money) of Berlin (1921), district Köpenick.
Used in:
Money of Germany
Open for review.
Xylophanes falco MHNT CUT 2010 0 318 El Cameron Oaxaca Mexico male dorsal.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-03-25 06:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Xylophanes falco mounted specimen male dorsal
Open for review.
Carcassonne - Rempart de la Bastide saint-Louis (le bastion Saint-Martial).jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-03-25 06:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Buildings in Carcassonne- Rampart of the Bastide Saint-Louis (Saint-Martial Bastion)
Open for review.
Beaux-Arts de Carcassonne - Jupiter et Léda - Nicolas Bertin Joconde04400000587.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2019-03-25 06:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Jupiter et Léda by Nicolas Bertin, Musée des Beaux-Arts de Carcassonne

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 17:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Open for review.
Delleboersterheide – Catspoele Natuurgebied van It Fryske Gea. Omgeving van het heideveld 034.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2019-03-25 06:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Highland Cow in Friesland
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Cattle is too vague; I suggest to put only: {{c|Cattle in Friesland|Highland Cow in Friesland}} --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done. Small correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Open for review.
Marsh deer skeleton at MAV-USP.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m on 2019-03-25 07:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Blastocerus dichotomus skeletons
Used in:
Q504501
Reason:
excellent bone montage, great specimen -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m
Open for review.
Dachshund dog at MAV-USP-edited.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m on 2019-03-25 07:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Canis lupus familiaris (Dachshund) skeletons
Used in:
Q29099
Reason:
excellent bone montage, great specimen -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m
Open for review.
Llama skeleton at MAV-USP.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m on 2019-03-25 08:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Lama glama skeletons
Used in:
llama, Q42569, Лама_(животно), Lama (animal), Lama
Reason:
excellent bone montage, great specimen -- -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m
Open for review.
Wat Si Saket in its paved courtyard Vientiane Laos.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Basile Morin (talk) on 2019-03-25 08:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Wat Si Saket
Used in:
en:Wat Si Saket, fr:Vat Sisakhet
Open for review.
Coralliophila brevis 01.JPG
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2019-03-25 17:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Coralliophila brevis, shell
Open for review.
Berlin 50 Pfennig 1921 Spandau.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2019-03-25 22:23 (UTC)
Scope:
50 Pfennig "Notgeld" banknote (emergency money) of Berlin (1921), district Spandau.
Used in:
Money of Germany
Open for review.
Berlin 50 Pfennig 1921 Tiergarten.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2019-03-25 22:21 (UTC)
Scope:
50 Pfennig "Notgeld" banknote (emergency money) of Berlin (1921), district Tiergarten.
Used in:
Money of Germany, de:Prinzessin Charlotte von Preußen
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.

Pending valued image set candidates[edit]

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