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
43,615 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
39,281 (90.1%) 
Undecided
  
2,067 (4.7%) 
Declined
  
2,267 (5.2%) 


New valued image nominations[edit]

   
(MHNT) Strobilotoma typhaecornis - Profil.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-15 05:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Strobilotoma typhaecornis Lateral view
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think you might say this is too blurred to be valuable! Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Would you say that, considering it being used as a thumbnail in an article? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Charles is right the outer bangs are fuzzy, but he was alive, and he didn't like to pose. I have never seen this species since. The discriminator of the species is clearly visible: typhaecornis/ Horned distaff --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • As long as there is no better image, IMO this is the Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:32, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Landsgemeindebrunnen 20210528.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Domob (talk) on 2021-06-16 08:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Landsgemeinde-Brunnen, Appenzell
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Monument valley Goulding's stage lines (5).JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2021-06-16 09:09 (UTC)
Scope:
John Wayne's Cabin, Utah
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose That doesn't show the whole cabin (which needs to be identified as his cabin in his role in the movie, "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon"), and File:Nathan Brittles house.jpg is best in scope. "Door of the cabin" and "John Wayne's Cabin sign", which are possible scopes for this photo, don't seem like useful scopes to me, but someone might support a nomination in either of those scopes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Declined if the last vote was added no later than 00:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Jardin des papillons (Hunawihr) (1).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 [discuter] on 2021-06-16 09:38 (UTC)
Scope:
main building of Jardins des papillons (Hunawihr)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Monument aux morts de la Seconde Guerre mondiale (Illhaeusern).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 [discuter] on 2021-06-16 09:38 (UTC)
Scope:
World War II memorials in Haut-Rhin in Illhaeusern
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Char M10 Wolverine (Illhaeusern) (2).jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 [discuter] on 2021-06-16 09:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Char M10 Destroyer (Illhaeusern)
Open for review.
Pairi Daiza (Brugelette) Henschel No.15968 of 1917 (3).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2021-06-16 15:25 (UTC)
Scope:
0-8-0T Henschel No.15968 (Brigadelok), in Brugelette, Belgique
Used in:
Pairi Daiza
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Useful and used. The picture was slightly tilted. I turned it about 12 degrees to the right. Do you agree? -- Spurzem (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Tomb of Francis Close.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Martinvl (talk) on 2021-06-16 17:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Tomb of Francis Close, Carlisle Cathedral
Reason:
The English Wikipedia has an article on Francis Close which gives this image its notability. -- Martinvl (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
St Helens railway station new building.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-16 16:23 (UTC)
Scope:
St Helens Central railway station building
Used in:
See global usage
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Radio City Tower from Lime Street railway station.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-16 17:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Radio City Tower - viewed from Lime Street station
Used in:
Wikidata:Q2319549
Reason:
Another angle is always useful, even for a circular structure, and this is apparently the only view from Lime Street railway station we have and is a closer view than the existing VI. -- Rodhullandemu (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good and useful -- Spurzem (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
St David's Church, Newton-le-Willows 1.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-16 19:45 (UTC)
Scope:
St David's Church, Newton-le-Willows
Used in:
Wikidata:Q107266674
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Rotenburg Käthe Wohlfhart (2).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2021-06-16 21:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Käthe Wohlfahrt Weihnachtsdorf in Rothenburg ob der Tauber, Auto
Used in:
Asquith Motors
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Zicht op de De grote kerk van Hindeloopen. 30-03-2021. (actm) 05.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2021-06-17 04:49 (UTC)
Scope:
View of the tower from the Grote Kerk Hindeloopen) South east east side.
Open for review.
(MHNT) Geum urbanum - Buds and flower.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-17 05:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Geum urbanum (wood avens) - Buds and flower
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Very good, useful and often used -- Spurzem (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Open for review.
Frari (Venice) nave left - Monument to Doge Giovanni Pesaro - Religion and Value, below Intelligence and Nobility by Josse de Corte.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-17 05:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Basilica di Santa Maria Gloriosa dei Frari- Venezia Monument to Doge Giovanni Pesaro - Concord and Justice below Wealth and Study by Josse de Corte

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Open for review.
(Albi) Cheval blanc GAZELLE - Toulouse-Lautrec.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-17 05:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Cheval blanc GAZELLE (White horse GAZELLE) by Toulouse-Lautrec in Musée Toulouse-Lautrec Albi

Symbol support vote.svg Support Best in scope --Llez (talk) 05:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Open for review.
Trepospira discoidalis 01.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2021-06-17 05:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Trepospira discoidalis, shell
Open for review.
Lanercost Priory from SE.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Martinvl (talk) on 2021-06-17 14:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Southern aspect of the Lanercost Priory
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support But a little vertical correction would be nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Open for review.
Hamamelis x intermedia 'Angelly'. 18-04-2021. (d.j.b).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2021-06-17 17:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Hamamelis × intermedia 'Angelly' New leaves sprouting in April.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Excellent, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)!-- Itemized list of review comments. -->
Open for review.
Emmanuel Wargrave Church 5.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-17 13:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Emmanuel Wargrave Church south side from the east
Used in:
Wikidata:Q105099746
Reason:
An almost complete view of the church due to space constraints, but shows the original architecture -- Rodhullandemu (talk)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment If you reduce the scope to the angle of view you can also ask for the label for the face of the church which is even more original. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks, have changed scope and have nominated the west end. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Open for review.
Emmanuel Wargrave Church 2.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-18 07:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Emmanuel Wargrave Church - west end & spire
Used in:
Wikidata:Q105099746
Open for review.
(MHNT) Graptopetalum paraguayense - leaves.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-18 05:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Graptopetalum paraguayense - leaves

Symbol support vote.svg Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Open for review.
Saint-Sulpice-la-Pointe (Tarn) - Le pont du chemin de fer sur l'Agout.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-18 05:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint-Sulpice-la-Pointe, Tarn, France - The railway bridge over the Agout river.

~* Symbol support vote.svg Support. Beautiful image, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Open for review.
Lirophora latilirata 02.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2021-06-18 07:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Lirophora latilirata, left valve
Open for review.
Vulcan Works relief.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-18 08:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Vulcan Works relief
Used in:
Wikidata:Q2011495
Open for review.
Centre of Vulcan Village.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-18 09:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Vulcan Village - centre
Used in:
Wikidata:Q107285298
Reason:
Vulcan Village is small (population a couple of hundred) and this is the location of the bus stop, post box, telephone box and pub. -- Rodhullandemu (talk)
Open for review.
Manchester Row, Vulcan Village 2.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-18 09:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Manchester Row, Vulcan Village
Used in:
Wikidata:Q107285298
Reason:
View along a typical terrace of worker's cottages, also shows the logo of the iron works that employed them. -- Rodhullandemu (talk)
Open for review.
Fretin.- l'église Église Saint-Martin.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2021-06-18 09:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Église Saint-Martin de Fretin
Used in:
Wikidata: Q41784419
  • Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Open for review.
Elne Weihwasserbecken PM66000305.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2021-06-18 16:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Holy-water font, possibly 1st century A.D.  in Cathedral Sainte-Eulalie-et-Sainte-Julie, Elne, France.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Open for review.
(MHNT) Geranium molle - leaves, buds flower.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-19 04:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Geranium molle (Dove's-foot Crane's-bill) - Leaves, buds flower
Open for review.
(Albi) Petite chienne blanche - Toulouse-Lautrec 1881 - Musée Toulouse-Lautrec MTL65.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-19 04:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Petite chienne blanche (Small white dog) by Toulouse-Lautrec in Musée Toulouse-Lautrec Albi

Symbol support vote.svg Support Best in scope --Llez (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Open for review.
Stavoren. Brug over de Stadsgracht bij het Havenkantoor. 31-05-2021 (actm.).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2021-06-19 05:11 (UTC)
Scope:
White bridge at the harbor office in Stavoren.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good and useful, the only one of this view -- Spurzem (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Open for review.
Glabrocingulum grayvillense 01.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2021-06-19 05:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Glabrocingulum grayvillense, shell
Open for review.
Urmitz, St. Georg - Altar u. Seitenaltäre (2021-06-07 Sp d).JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Spurzem (talk) on 2021-06-19 09:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Choir and side altars in St. Georg (Urmitz), 18th century
Used in:
de: St. Georg (Urmitz
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support best in scope, Useful & used.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Open for review.
Bloem van een schijnpapaver (Meconopsis cambrica) 23-05-2021. (d.j.b).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2021-06-19 16:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Papaver cambricum orange flower.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Very good, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The photography is perfect but the scope is difficult. The name of the species and the genus are questionable. For my taste Papaver cambricum seems to me the most legitimate. On the other hand it is a flower not an Inflorescence; it is necessary to correct and it is necessary to reduce the scope to "orange" because the usual color is yellow. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done. Scope adjusted. Thanks for the review.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Open for review.
Sankey Viaduct 3.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-19 19:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Sankey Viaduct
Used in:
Wikidata:Q7418706
Reason:
A massive structure and no helicopter or drone available. So I've tried to show as many of the nine arches as possible, as close as possible. Its only real rival, Sankey Viaduct - October 2016.jpg is unfortunately cropped at the top right. -- Rodhullandemu (talk)
Open for review.
(MHNT) Graptopetalum paraguayense Flower.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-20 05:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Graptopetalum paraguayense - Flower

Symbol support vote.svg Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Open for review.
(Albi) Tête de chien courant - Toulouse-Lautrec 1880 - Musée Toulouse-Lautrec MTL29.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-20 05:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Tête de chien courant (Head of a Scent hound) by Toulouse-Lautrec in Musée Toulouse-Lautrec Albi

Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Open for review.
Mitreola labratula 01.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2021-06-20 05:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Mitreola labratula, shell
Open for review.
Close wing position of Flos fulgida (Hewitson, (1863)) – Shining PlushblueDSC 7562.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Atudu (talk) on 20 August 2021
Scope:
Flos fulgida (Shining Plushblue), ventral
Open for review.
Elne Cathedral benchmark.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2021-06-20 10:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Benchmark of Ministère de la Reconstruction et de l'Urbanisme, at Elne Cathedral, France.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good and useful -- Spurzem (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Open for review.
Bradley Swing Bridge, Sankey Canal 5.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-20 12:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Bradley Swing Bridge, Sankey Canal
Used in:
Wikidata:Q26494820
Open for review.
Bradley Lock, Sankey Canal 2.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-20 13:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Bradley Lock, Sankey Canal
Used in:
Wikidata:Q26339933
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good and useful image -- Spurzem (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Open for review.
Stavoren. Shoreliner (Stavoren) vuilvanger voor drijvend zwerfafval. 31-05-2021 (actm.) 02.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2021-06-20 17:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Shoreliner (Stavoren) a dirt trap for floating litter in the port of Stavoren. (Detail)

Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Open for review.


Pending Most valued review candidates[edit]

Scope: Kreuzberg seen from southwest[edit]

   
Kreuzberg (Rhön).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Milseburg (talk) on 2018-04-12 15:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Kreuzberg seen from southwest
Used in:
de:Kreuzberg (Rhön)
Reason:
Most representative view of this prominent mountain -- Milseburg (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Agreed. Best in scope, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose in favor of the suggested replacement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Kreuzberg (Rhön), Südwestansicht.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Milseburg (talk) on 2021-03-30 09:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Kreuzberg seen from the southwest
Reason:
New version, higher resolution, better quality, now best in scope -- Milseburg (talk)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The key point for VIC is that this photo is in better light and sharper at review size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Scope: Macaca mulatta[edit]

   
Rhesus Macaque, Red Fort, Agra.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Yann (talk) on 2010-08-26 07:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Macaca mulatta

Symbol support vote.svg Support This one seems to me the best --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

MVR Scores: 
1. Rhesus Macaque, Red Fort, Agra.jpg: +1 <--
2. Rhesus Macaque, Red Fort, Agra, India.jpg: 0
3. Monkey yawning 1.jpg: 0
=>
File:Rhesus Macaque, Red Fort, Agra.jpg: Promoted. <--
File:Rhesus Macaque, Red Fort, Agra, India.jpg: Declined. 
File:Monkey yawning 1.jpg: Declined.
--Myrabella (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose in favor of the other photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta mulatta), male, Gokarna.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2021-04-26 09:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Macaca mulatta mulatta (Rhesus macaque), male
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Much sharper than the other photo at review size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Perfect --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Scope: Theresa May, portrait photography[edit]

   
Theresa May (2015) (cropped).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
AlbanGeller (talk) on 2020-06-01 12:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Theresa May, portrait photography
Used in:
Theresa May
Scores: 
1. Theresa May 2015.jpg: -1 (current VI within same scope)
2. Theresa May (2015) (cropped).jpg: +1 <--
=>
File:Theresa May 2015.jpg: Declined and demoted to VI-former.
File:Theresa May (2015) (cropped).jpg: Promoted. <--

Pictogram voting info.svg Scope changed from Theresa May in 2015, portrait photograph to Theresa May, portrait photography --ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 22:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support More flattering. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Theresa May (2016) (cropped).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) on 2021-05-06 13:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Theresa May, portrait photography
Reason:
Best-quality image of Mrs May on the Commons. -- ᴀlbanɢeller (talk)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question If it's the best image of her, why is the year it was taken significant for the scope? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: feel free to change the scope if you like. ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
You're the nominator. I'll leave it to you and then see how many photos are in scope before making a decision about which if any I consider best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
OK Ikan, I'll change the scope to Theresa May. ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Please link to only one Commons category. I will see whether there aren't too many photos for me to compare. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
OK, it looks to me like the category is official portraits of her only, but there's already a VI in that category - see File:Theresa May (2015) (cropped).jpg. Therefore, if you believe another photo is better in scope, you need to do a Most Valuable Review faceoff. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:01, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: OK, I've removed the second category. ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia links aren't normally used in scopes, but my main point is that you need to do a Most Valuable Review. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I'll change it back to Theresa May in 2016 for now. Wikipedia link removed. ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment the scope has to be the same for all candidates in an MVR. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Scope changed from Theresa May in 2016 to Theresa May --ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Emphasizes the wrinkles around her eyes more. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Scope: Cour d'appel de Colmar[edit]

   
Cour d'appel de Colmar.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 [discuter] on 2017-11-07 18:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Cour d'appel de Colmar
Reason:
National heritage site. -- Gzen92 [discuter]
✓ New version Gzen92 [discuter] 11:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose In favour of the newer version Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Cour d'appel (Colmar).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 [discuter] on 2021-06-17 08:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Cour d'appel de Colmar

Symbol support vote.svg Support Not a sunny as the other one but building isn't cropped as tightly. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Open for review.
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.