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: Main VI page Valued image candidates Valued image criteria Valued image scope Valued image value Nomination procedure Review procedure Most Valued Review Promotion rules Valued image closure How to nominate an image for VI status 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) 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 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 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 How to review an image 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 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. -- ~~~~  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 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

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache

22,942 closed valued image candidates
Closed as				Nominations
Promoted			20,063 (87.5%)
Undecided			1,229 (5.4%)
Declined			1,650 (7.2%)

New valued image nominations

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: শাহাদাত সায়েম (talk) on 2016-09-25 16:12 (UTC) Scope: Collectorate Bhaban  Comment Perspective correction necessary. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC) @ Archaeodontosaurus Done-শাহাদাত সায়েম (talk) 05:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)  ?? The perspective aberration is always present. There must also be a caption in English.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC) @Archaeodontosaurus Sorry, my browser have some error so I could not done then . Please you see now , I have make a correction there . Thanks-শাহাদাত সায়েম (talk) 10:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)  Support Historical Place -- সাইফুল্লাহ রিয়াজ (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)  Oppose Good for caption, but not for perspective correction. Is possible to fix it --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)  Oppose Per criteria. ~ Moheen (talk) 12:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)  Support Perfect now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: ElisonSeg (talk) on 2016-09-25 19:11 (UTC) Scope: Portrait of Her Excellency, the Marquesa de Vistabella. Dona Francisca Aparicio Vistabella. Spain, 1892. Francisco Masriera. Used in: 7 articles in 3 different languages.  Comment Must connect the scope to the category that contains the image --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)  Comment I have checked this submission against all six criteria for the scope. AS it was lacking an English description, I have added that description. I am happy for somebody else to check my description and to support this nomination. Martinvl (talk) 19:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)  Comment The scope mix all, if the author wants to make remarks or comment he can do it in the field provided for that. I suggest the following scope:Portrait of {{c|Francisca Aparicio y Mérida}} by Francisco Masriera --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:09, 27 September 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Mar11 (talk) on 2016-09-26 19:13 (UTC) Scope: Category:Michael Madhusudan Dutt Used in: en Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Halavar (talk) on 2016-09-27 10:03 (UTC) Scope: Samtavro Monastery - church of the Transfiguration. Mtskheta, Georgia. Church portal.  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 10:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2016-09-27 10:33 (UTC) Scope: Asphodeline lutea (Yellow Asphodel), habitus  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: DAJF (talk) on 2016-09-27 12:40 (UTC) Scope: Tobu 50090 series in "Flying Tojo" (blue) livery Used in: Global usage  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Ercé (talk) on 2016-09-27 16:14 (UTC) Scope: Zea mays (Maize "strawberry"), fruits and seeds, dried specimen  Support Useful --J. Lunau (talk) 21:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-09-28 05:32 (UTC) Scope: Amphonyx lucifer mounted specimen female ventral  Support Useful --J. Lunau (talk) 06:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-09-28 05:34 (UTC) Scope: Bédarieux, Hérault, France. Facade of the town hall.  Support --Mathieu MD (talk) 09:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-09-28 05:36 (UTC) Scope: Basilica di Santa Maria Gloriosa dei Frari- Venice - St.Peter Chapel - Marble altarpiece  Support--Mathieu MD (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Jaqen (talk) on 2016-09-28 08:22 (UTC) Scope: Robert J. Kuntz Used in: en:Robert J. Kuntz, fr:Robert J. Kuntz, ja:ロバート・J・クンツ  Comment: Definitely the best in scope, but needs geocoding. --DAJF (talk) 08:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)  Support It's a photo of a person, I don't see why it should require geocoding. --Mathieu MD (talk) 09:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)  Info I tend to agree with Mathieu MD, but I've added location anyway. --Jaqen (talk) 10:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)  Support: Good-quality image and most valuable in scope. Thanks for adding geocoding. --DAJF (talk) 06:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Mathieu MD (talk) on 2016-09-28 09:03 (UTC) Scope: Dry dock of Toulouse - Covered dock - Seen from South  Question, is this the only covered dry dock in Toulouse? If it is, the scope could be reduced to: Covered dry dock of Toulouse - from the south. If it isn't then I guess the name or locality needs adding too. DeFacto (talk). 21:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)  Info AFAIK, yes, it's currently the only one. But close to it is another one which is currently converted to a workshop (the gare d'eau, which could still be converted back to a dry dock if they happened to want to make new peniches, but it's really unlikely to be the case). The "official" name of the place is Bassin de radoub (which translates to dry dock), but it actually contains 3 dry docks: 2 uncovered, and this one, covered. So I used dry dock in the scope as the name of the place rather than the description of this actual dry dock. If I had to write the scope in French, it would have be: Bassin de radoub - Cale sèche couverte - Vu du sud, in order to left place for other scopes like Bassin de radoub - Cale sèche and still keep the same syntax. I hope my English explanation is making sense... --Mathieu MD (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)  Comment, thanks for your excellent explanation, I understand the situation better now and agree with your reasoning. :-) DeFacto (talk). 06:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 06:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Mathieu MD (talk) on 2016-09-28 09:07 (UTC) Scope: Building at 32 rue Sainte-Philomène, Toulouse - Seen from NE Reason: Monument historique -- Mathieu MD (talk)  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 20:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2016-09-28 18:14 (UTC) Scope: Monoplex parthenopeus (Giant Hairy Triton), shell  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-09-29 05:10 (UTC) Scope: Manduca rustica mounted sepcimen, male ventral  Support Useful --Llez (talk) 09:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-09-29 05:15 (UTC) Scope: Ponte del Cristo, on Rio di Santa Marina, in Venice. West exposure.  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 18:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-09-29 05:19 (UTC) Scope: Basilica di Santa Maria Gloriosa dei Frari- Venice - Monument to Jacopo Pesaro  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 16:46, 29 September 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2016-09-29 06:03 (UTC) Scope: Coat of arms (1797) in Trier-Zurlauben, Germany  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 30 September 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Tsy1980 (talk) on 2016-09-29 10:07 (UTC) Scope: Antarctic Treaty Monument (Historic Site or Monument No. 82) Used in: en:Historic Sites and Monuments in Antarctica Reason: The only image of the HSM 82 -- Tsy1980 (talk)  Support useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2016-09-29 11:04 (UTC) Scope: Bacopa madagascariensis (Madagascan Bacopa), habitus  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Neozoon (talk) on 2016-09-29 15:18 (UTC) Scope: Edmund Erlemann Used in: Edmund Erlemann (DE)  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2016-09-29 16:28 (UTC) Scope: 11 Kościelna Street in Bystrzyca Kłodzka, exposure from NW  Support Useful --Llez (talk) 16:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2016-09-29 16:54 (UTC) Scope: Meersburg Castle, knight's hall  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Lucas.Belo (talk) on 2016-09-29 18:26 (UTC) Scope: Bovine articulation Bovinus Tarsum (Cattle) legs Used in: EN, FR Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Lucas.Belo (talk) on 2016-09-29 18:43 (UTC) Scope: Camelus Calvariae (Camel skull) Used in: EN, PT, ES  Comment Colorization is not natural that skull can not represent the entire skull of this species. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-09-30 05:12 (UTC) Scope: Manduca rustica harterti male dorsal  Support Useful --Llez (talk) 19:51, 30 September 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-09-30 05:18 (UTC) Scope: Belleserre, Tarn France, War memorial  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 06:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-09-30 05:20 (UTC) Scope: Basilica di Santa Maria Gloriosa dei Frari - Venice - Monument to Girolamo Venier  Support, best in scope. DeFacto (talk). 06:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Jaqen (talk) on 2016-09-30 09:45 (UTC) Scope: David Brkic Used in: es:David Brkic, it:David Brkic  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Jaqen (talk) on 2016-09-30 09:52 (UTC) Scope: Pietrangelo Buttafuoco Used in: fr:Pietrangelo Buttafuoco, it:Pietrangelo Buttafuoco, it:q:Pietrangelo Buttafuoco  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Martinvl (talk) on 2016-09-30 12:43 (UTC) Scope: Carnival Spirit (ship)  Comment it would be useful that this image is used. Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Famberhorst (talk) on 2016-09-30 17:21 (UTC) Scope: Fuchsia 'Katinka' Flowers en buds.  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: DeFacto (talk). on 2016-09-30 19:24 (UTC) Scope: Cantlop Bridge - from the north-west Used in: en:List of English Heritage properties, en:Cound, en:Cantlop Bridge, en:Grade II* listed buildings in Shropshire Council (A–G) Reason: An early cast-iron bridge by Thomas Telford -- DeFacto (talk).  Support useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2016-09-30 19:49 (UTC) Scope: Viviparus ater (Italian River Snail), shell  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2016-09-30 20:20 (UTC) Scope: NW view of Baldringen, Germany Used in: de:Baldringen  Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-10-01 05:39 (UTC) Scope: Manduca rustica harterti male ventral  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-10-01 05:43 (UTC) Scope: Rio di Santa Marina (Venice). View from Ponte del Cristo to Ponte Conzafelzi  Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2016-10-01 05:46 (UTC) Scope: Basilica di Santa Maria Gloriosa dei Frari- Venice - The Franciscan tree by Pietro Negri 1670  Support Useful --Llez (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Jaqen (talk) on 2016-10-01 07:18 (UTC) Scope: Juan Diaz Canales Used in: ca:Juan Díaz Canales, en:Juan Díaz Canales, fi:Juan Diaz Canales, it:Juan Díaz Canales Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2016-10-01 07:44 (UTC) Scope: Uhldingen-Mühlhofen, statue of a pile dweller  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC) Open for review.

Pending Most valued review candidates

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

New valued image set nominations

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

Closed valued image set candidates

• Promoted valued image set candidates
• Declined valued image set candidates
• Undecided valued image set candidates