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 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

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

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-15 05:10 (UTC) Scope: Strobilotoma typhaecornis Lateral view  Comment I think you might say this is too blurred to be valuable! Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)  Question Would you say that, considering it being used as a thumbnail in an article? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)  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  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)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Domob (talk) on 2021-06-16 08:28 (UTC) Scope: Landsgemeinde-Brunnen, Appenzell  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:24, 17 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)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2021-06-16 09:09 (UTC) Scope: John Wayne's Cabin, Utah  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)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Gzen92 [discuter] on 2021-06-16 09:38 (UTC) Scope: main building of Jardins des papillons (Hunawihr)  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:26, 17 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)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Gzen92 [discuter] on 2021-06-16 09:38 (UTC) Scope: World War II memorials in Haut-Rhin in Illhaeusern  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:26, 17 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)	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Gzen92 [discuter] on 2021-06-16 09:37 (UTC) Scope: Char M10 Destroyer (Illhaeusern) Open for review.
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  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)	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)  Support. Good and useful. But I do not see the image in en: Francis Close -- Spurzem (talk) 20:01, 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)
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  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:27, 17 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)	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)  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)
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  Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:47, 17 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)	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  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:28, 17 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)
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.  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-17 05:30 (UTC) Scope: Geum urbanum (wood avens) - Buds and flower  Support. Very good, useful and often used -- Spurzem (talk) 17:29, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
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  Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	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  Support Best in scope --Llez (talk) 05:24, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2021-06-17 05:18 (UTC) Scope: Trepospira discoidalis, shell  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Martinvl (talk) on 2021-06-17 14:04 (UTC) Scope: Southern aspect of the Lanercost Priory  Support But a little vertical correction would be nice.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Famberhorst (talk) on 2021-06-17 17:38 (UTC) Scope: Hamamelis × intermedia 'Angelly' New leaves sprouting in April.  Support. Excellent, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)!-- Itemized list of review comments. --> Open for review.	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)  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)  Comment Thanks, have changed scope and have nominated the west end. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)  Support Perfec now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
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  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-18 05:00 (UTC) Scope: Graptopetalum paraguayense - leaves  Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 07:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
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. ~*  Support. Beautiful image, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2021-06-18 07:32 (UTC) Scope: Lirophora latilirata, left valve  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-18 08:28 (UTC) Scope: Vulcan Works relief Used in: Wikidata:Q2011495  Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	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.
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)  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	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  Best in Scope, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
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.  Best in Scope, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	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  Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
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  Support Best in scope --Llez (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2021-06-19 05:11 (UTC) Scope: White bridge at the harbor office in Stavoren.  Support Good and useful, the only one of this view -- Spurzem (talk) 12:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2021-06-19 05:34 (UTC) Scope: Glabrocingulum grayvillense, shell  Support best in scope.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	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  Support best in scope, Useful & used.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Famberhorst (talk) on 2021-06-19 16:01 (UTC) Scope: Papaver cambricum orange flower.  Support Very good, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 17:58, 19 June 2021 (UTC)  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)  Support Perfect now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	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)  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-20 05:11 (UTC) Scope: Graptopetalum paraguayense - Flower  Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 05:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	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  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:28, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2021-06-20 05:25 (UTC) Scope: Mitreola labratula, shell  Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:25, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Atudu (talk) on 20 August 2021 Scope: Flos fulgida (Shining Plushblue), ventral Open for review.
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.  Support Good and useful -- Spurzem (talk) 16:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-20 12:10 (UTC) Scope: Bradley Swing Bridge, Sankey Canal Used in: Wikidata:Q26494820  Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-20 13:52 (UTC) Scope: Bradley Lock, Sankey Canal Used in: Wikidata:Q26339933  Support Good and useful image -- Spurzem (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	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)  Best in Scope Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.

Pending Most valued review candidates

Scope: Kreuzberg seen from southwest

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)  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)  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)	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)  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

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Yann (talk) on 2010-08-26 07:27 (UTC) Scope: Macaca mulatta  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)  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)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2021-04-26 09:48 (UTC) Scope: Macaca mulatta mulatta (Rhesus macaque), male  Support Much sharper than the other photo at review size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2021 (UTC)  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

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: AlbanGeller (talk) on 2020-06-01 12:57 (UTC) Scope: Theresa May, portrait photography Used in: Theresa May  Comment There is already a promoted image : Theresa May 2015.jpg --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC) @Archaeodontosaurus: Please see the MVR at COM:VIC#Theresa May, portrait photograph. AlbanGeller (talk) 23:40, 7 June 2020 (UTC) @Archaeodontosaurus, AlbanGeller: Please consider !voting in this MVR. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)  Support Best in scope, IMO. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC) 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. <-- 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".  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)	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)  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)  Oppose I don't think we want to have one VI for each year. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC) @Ikan Kekek: would you reconsider if I changed the scope back and linked to just Category:Theresa May? ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 23:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC) You don't seem to understand: There is already a VI in this scope. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2021 (UTC) OK, understood.  I withdraw my nomination and will nominate a MVR of this image with Theresa May (2015) (cropped).jpg shortly. ᴀlbanɢeller (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)  Comment the scope has to be the same for all candidates in an MVR. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC) 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".  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

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]  Comment Perspective correction necessary. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)  New version Gzen92 [discuter] 11:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)  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)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Gzen92 [discuter] on 2021-06-17 08:45 (UTC) Scope: Cour d'appel de Colmar  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

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