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

39,499 closed valued image candidates
Closed as				Nominations
Promoted			35,373 (89.6%)
Undecided			1,945 (4.9%)
Declined			2,181 (5.5%)

New valued image nominations

View promotion Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2020-07-09 15:38 (UTC) Scope: MAW engine of a Motorized bicycles from 1959 Used in: de: MAW (Hilfsmotor)  Support Useful & used. --GRDN711 (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) on 2020-07-11 03:05 (UTC) Scope: Documents from Centro de Estudios de Historia de México Carso Fundación Carlos Slim - Emiliano Zapata by anonymous author Reason: Emiliano Zapata was one of the people who fought in Mexico against the dictatorship to give the Mexicans the lands that belonged to them and this is one of the most iconic images that are remembered of him. -- Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) Previous reviews Result: 0 support, 1 oppose => declined. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:13, 24 October 2019 (UTC)  Comment It looks like this photo was taken at the same shot as this one, which I like better because it's a full-body shot and doesn't have such a dark shadow on his face, but I'd like to hear other people's views, and I could see both photos being useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)  Comment I've been requested by Aurelio de Sandoval to write in Spanish in discussions of his nominations. That's a very reasonable request, but unfortunately, while I can write in Italian and French to a degree, my Spanish is really not so good, so if anyone else would like to summarize my main points in good Spanish in each of these nominations, that would be very helpful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
View promotion Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2020-07-12 05:44 (UTC) Scope: Nassarius tiarula (Western Mud Nassa), shell  Support Usefull --Ercé (talk) 08:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Sabina Bajracharya (talk) on 2020-07-12 07:01 (UTC) Scope: Zephyranthes candida ( autumn zephyrlily) - flower Reason: it is a fully bloomed flower which clearly dispalys the petals -- Sabina Bajracharya (talk)  Comment For VI you need precise scopes. In this case the binomial (always in italics), followed by the vernacular name in English in parenthesis; the scope is reduced to "flower". Look at the changes. Modify the other two appointments accordingly. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Sabina Bajracharya, this is a scope that is covered by many pictures - 47, to be exact. Did you look at all of them in order to fairly determine that in your opinion, this photo is the best in scope? In fairness, you always should before you nominate. Quite honestly, I'm reluctant to compare every photo in scope, because it would be pretty time-consuming. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
View opposition Nominated by: Sabina Bajracharya (talk) on 2020-07-12 08:00 (UTC) Scope: ...Fully bloomed flower of Hydrangea serrata Reason: The fully bloomed flowers clearly displaying the flowers and leaves. -- Sabina Bajracharya (talk)  Oppose It is not ONE flower but an inflorescence. The scope is not admissible.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Result: 0 support, 1 oppose => declined. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)	View opposition Nominated by: Sabina Bajracharya (talk) on 2020-07-12 08:31 (UTC) Scope: ...Fully bloomed flower of Bellis perennis en:Bellis perennis Reason: it is a fully bloomed flower which clearly dispalys the petals -- Sabina Bajracharya (talk) There is an FP among hundreds of photos in this category. Why is this one most valuable? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)  Oppose It's content-wise not the best in scope. Even if I do not rate the technical quality, the actual technical restrictions of the photographical device make for that the candidate picture looses (detail, quality and in sum valuability) in comparison e.g. to this one (made with a true macro lens). Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC) Result: 0 support, 1 oppose => declined. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)
View promotion Nominated by: Ercé (talk) on 2020-07-12 08:57 (UTC) Scope: Calidris temminckii (Temminck's stint) eggs  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 0:18 or 12:18 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2020-07-12 09:45 (UTC) Scope: „Sitzende“ by Martine Andernach in Mülheim-Kärlich Used in: de: Martine Andernach Is this in the public domain and not protected by copyright? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)  Question Oy! I guess that's a problem with Bořek Zeman's statue nominated above, too? :( -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC) @Ikan Kekek: What does the artwork of Martina Andernach in Mülheim-Kärlich have to do with the statue of Bořek Zeman in the spa gardens of Bad Neuenahr? And what is actually wrong now? -- Spurzem (talk) 11:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC) The issue is COM:FOP Germany, but it looks like that's not a problem. Charlesjsharp, why do you think it's a problem? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC) The sculpture stands on a publicly accessible square of the city of Mülheim-Kärlich. -- Spurzem (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC) I just asked because of the warning on the category pageː Category:Martine Andernach. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC) @Charlesjsharp: The user who added the warning to the category appears to be specialized in deletion requests. I doubt that his actions can always be justified. In my photo of the sculpture at the town hall in Mülheim-Kärlich, the freedom of panorama applies and therefore does not violate copyright law. -- Spurzem (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)  Support Useful. Can we delete that stupid warning on that page? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC) @Ikan Kekek: That's why it's best to contact User Martin Sg. He thinks the note is useful and understandable. -- Spurzem (talk) 11:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)  Comment See Category talk:Martine Andernach#Copyright notice. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 17:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2020-07-12 12:10 (UTC) Scope: Tower clockwork by Heinrich Zilliken from the parish church of St. Mauritius Kärlich Used in: de: Heinrich Zilliken  Support Useful and quite interesting. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 17:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Grand-Duc (talk) on 2020-07-12 12:49 (UTC) Scope: IMO 9868326 HMM Oslo Reason: This still of a class of ULCS show the girth of the vessel and has a size comparison with a tug / utility vessel (Multrasalvor 3 IMO 9635975) build-in. -- Grand-Duc (talk)  Support @Grand-Duc: Very good image for me, not yet used but useful. Probably however you have to correct the scope. It should not be the file name but the category. Best regards -- Spurzem (talk) 14:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC) Well, the IMO number stays the same for the lifetime of a hull. This does not hold true for the owner/charterer dependent name of a ship, that's why I defined the scope based upon the former (cf. Category:IMO 9868326). But a change won't be a problem if necessary. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 17:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 17:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2020-07-12 14:39 (UTC) Scope: Building in Treis-Karden, Kernstraße 9, from the 18th century, view from southwest  Best in Scope -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 17:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2020-07-12 18:55 (UTC) Scope: Plaque to Philip Toosey Used in: Wikidata:Q3379092  Support Definitely useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-07-13 04:36 (UTC) Scope: Amplypterus mansoni takamukui mounted specimen, female ventral  Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-07-13 04:38 (UTC) Scope: Musée Ingres-Bourdelle - Buste d'Ingres 1840 - Auguste-Louis-Marie Ottin  Support Usefull --Ercé (talk) 06:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-07-13 04:41 (UTC) Scope: Musée Ingres-Bourdelle - La Circoncision - Giovanni Bellini (Circumcision)  Best in Scope. Should the title be given in Italian? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2020-07-13 05:58 (UTC) Scope: Bellamya dissimilis, shell  Support Usefull --Ercé (talk) 06:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: ~~ on 2020-07-13 06:33 (UTC) Scope: Calidris falcinellus (broad-billed sandpiper) egg  Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ on 2020-07-13 09:12 (UTC) Scope: Al-Ikhlas Grand Mosque domes  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ on 2020-07-13 09:10 (UTC) Scope: Al-Ikhlas Grand Mosque  Support Useful & used, but a vertical correction would be better.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Ввласенко (talk) on 2020-07-13 09:38 (UTC) Scope: Statue San Giacomo Confessore (Catania) Used in: Catania Cathedral, Katedra św. Agaty w Katanii  Comment - I tried t find out about the man behind the statue, but could not find anything in Wikipedia, which means that this might well fail the notability test and therefore would not justify an entry in its own right. I did a little research (including translating "San Giacomo Confessore" to "St James the Confessor") and have found out a little about him which, in the absence of a Wikipedia article (in any language), I added to the description. If anybody can argue for his notability, I would be happy to support this nomination, but I woudl like a second opinion on my extensions to the description. Martinvl (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)  Info - The mention of the bishop in the Orthodox Church list of Saints is explained by the fact that he was canonized before the separation of the churches into the Orthodox and the Catholic in 1054. The statue, from my point of view, is more interesting as a local work of art 19 century (on the base of the statue is the inscription "L-zo GRASSO scolpiva CAT. 1896.")-- Ввласенко (talk) 14:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Andrei (talk) on 2020-07-13 11:28 (UTC) Scope: Map of Poland, LGBT ideology-free zones declared (as of January 2020) Used in: en.wiki  Support Unbelievable. Useful, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Andrei (talk) on 2020-07-13 11:42 (UTC) Scope: Tomasz Wasilewski Used in: numerous wikis  Support Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Martinvl (talk) on 2020-07-13 12:14 (UTC) Scope: Atmospheric pressure changes during the Great Storm of 1987 in England Reason: Although there are a number of barograms in Wikimedia Commons showing how atmospheric pressure varied during a storm, this one is a real recording relating to a documented storm (in English, en français and in på norsk). -- Martinvl (talk)  Support Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Domob (talk) on 2020-07-13 12:14 (UTC) Scope: Bristenstäfeli (Fallätsche) Reason:  Comment On a previous nomination, Ikan Kekek suggested that this is the most valuable picture within the scope. --Domob (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC) -- Domob (talk) Indeed.  Best in Scope for my money. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2020-07-13 16:13 (UTC) Scope: Polder mill Tjasker Zandpoel Detail of the mill.  Support Interesting detail, good and useful image -- Spurzem (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2020-07-13 17:53 (UTC) Scope: St.-Castor-Straße 4, Karden, Canon house from the 17th century, later until the beginning of the 2000s inn „Zum Schwan“ Reason: The beautiful old house is unfortunately no longer inhabited and there is concern that it will eventually disappear. Therefore it should at least be captured in the picture before it is too late. -- Spurzem (talk)  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2020-07-13 19:40 (UTC) Scope: Owen (Wilfred) plaque, Birkenhead Used in: Wikidata:Q212719  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2020-07-13 20:05 (UTC) Scope: 18 Village Road, Oxton Used in: Wikidata:Q26497442 Reason: Unobscured full view with plaque -- Rodhullandemu (talk)  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2020-07-13 20:37 (UTC) Scope: plaque to Edith Smith Used in: Wikidata:Q5338679  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Ezarateesteban on 2020-07-13 23:56 (UTC) Scope: Printed engraving Manuel Oribe by Jules Daufrene  Question It is not a drawing but a printed engraving. Is Jules Daufrene the author of the engraving or the drawing?--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC) He is the author of the drawing Ezarateesteban 13:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Thank you for that clarification. Do not forget to modify the scope: it is not a drawing. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)  Done Ezarateesteban 15:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) on 2020-07-14 03:42 (UTC) Scope: Emiliano Zapata by HJ Gutierrez. Used in: Category:Documents from Centro de Estudios de Historia de México Carso Fundación Carlos Slim Reason: This other image of the revolutionary hero Emiliano Zapata should also be valuable for the following reasons: 1-It is an image with few shadows. 2-With almost no shadows, the image is very sharp with excellent visual quality. 3-It is a high quality image. 4-It is one of the few images that are in Wikimedia Commons that are full body of this revolutionary hero. -- Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) Previous reviews  Comment The file description says "Artist: Unknown", but in this nomination, you attribute it to HJ Gutierrez. Can you correct whichever description is wrong, please? Also note the previous review you linked. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC) @Ikan Kekek:I have already corrected the author's error, please communicate in Spanish.--Aurelio de Sandoval (talk)  Comment Puedo tentar, pero mi espanol es "quasi-italiano/cum ingles". Mira al descripcion del file "Artist: Unknown". Se non comprende, tal vez cualcuno puedo dir correctamente en espanol. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) on 2020-07-14 03:53 (UTC) Scope: José María Morelos by Colección Museo de Historia Mexicana, Monterrey Used in: Category:Mexican War of Independence, Category:19th-century engraved oval portraits of men at bust length Reason: The reasons this image is valuable is one of the following: 1- The image is very sharp with excellent visual and digital quality. 2-Until now it is one of the few, possibly the only image found on Wikimedia Commons that was signed by the Mexican independence hero José María Morelos. -- Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) Previous reviews  Comment A. Please link the Commons category that includes this photo. B. Is this photo by Colección Museo de Historia Mexicana or by some photographer who didn't work at the museum? Who took the photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)  Comment And again, you should act on the remarks you got in the previous reviews. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-07-14 05:02 (UTC) Scope: Adhemarius sexoculata Mounted specimen, male dorsal  Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-07-14 05:03 (UTC) Scope: Musée Ingres-Bourdelle - La Sculpture et l'Architecture - Platre - Antoine Bourdelle  Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-07-14 05:06 (UTC) Scope: Portail du Nord de Basilique Saint-Just de Valcabrère - The north portal tympanum  Support Beautiful image, best in scope, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 06:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2020-07-14 05:20 (UTC) Scope: Nassarius glans ssp. glans (Glans Nassa), shell  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Ercé (talk) on 2020-07-14 06:00 (UTC) Scope: Phalaropus lobatus (red-necked phalarope) eggs  Support Useful & used Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Andrei (talk) on 2020-07-14 07:38 (UTC) Scope: Palace of Culture and Science during the Parada Równości 2018 Used in: multiple Reason: Used in 11 different wikis. Parada Równości is a name for a Warsaw pride parade, so this photo of the most iconic Warsovian landmark is a good representation of the event. -- Andrei (talk)  Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Ввласенко (talk) on 2020-07-14 09:36 (UTC) Scope: Merton Street, Oxford - between Merton College and Oxford University Tennis Club Used in: Oxford  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2020-07-14 16:48 (UTC) Scope: Front of the Kerk van Sondel National monument.  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2020-07-14 19:39 (UTC) Scope: Heinkel Tourist 103 A2 from 1962, side view Used in: de: Heinkel Tourist, en: Heinkel Tourist, ja: ハインケル・ツーリスト  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2020-07-14 19:40 (UTC) Scope: Heinkel Tourist 103 A2 from 1962, rear and right side Used in: en: Heinkel Tourist, ja: ハインケル・ツーリスト, nl: Heinkel (merk)  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2020-07-14 19:51 (UTC) Scope: Heinkel Tourist 103 A0 from 1956, rear and right side Used in: ca: Escúter, de: Heinkel Tourist, en: Heinkel Tourist, en: Scooter (motorcycle), ja: ハインケル・ツーリスト, nl: Heinkel (merk)  Support Useful & used.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2020-07-14 20:45 (UTC) Scope: Heinkel Tourist 103 A0 from 1956, side view right Used in: de: Heinkel Tourist  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-07-15 04:53 (UTC) Scope: Portal of the Hôtel d'Orbessan, in Toulouse  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-07-15 04:56 (UTC) Scope: Musée Ingres-Bourdelle - Judith - anonymous, after Hans von AACHEN  Support Useful & used.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-07-15 04:57 (UTC) Scope: La Victoire - Camille Raynaud, Toulouse (The Victory)  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2020-07-15 05:33 (UTC) Scope: Bullia mauritiana (Mauritius Bullia), shell  Support Useful & used. --Andrei (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Atudu (talk) on 15 July 2020 Scope: Erionota apex (White-tipped Palm-redeye), ventral  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Nirmal Dulal (talk) on 2020-07-15 08:25 (UTC) Scope: Pheriche Village of Nepal Reason: Best in scope and Used in Wiki project -- Nirmal Dulal (talk)  Comment Very beautiful image and very useful, but it lacks geocoding in the caption. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Thanks Archaeodontosaurus for comment, geo location added now. -- Nirmal Dulal (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Jaqen (talk) on 2020-07-15 08:34 (UTC) Scope: John Kovalic Used in: arz:جون كوڤاليك, it:John Kovalic, d:Q606286  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Jaqen (talk) on 2020-07-15 08:40 (UTC) Scope: Lamberto Nazzareno Gestri Used in: it:Elezioni amministrative italiane del 2009, it:Lamberto Nazzareno Gestri, d:Q15123552  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Jaqen (talk) on 2020-07-15 08:42 (UTC) Scope: Andrea Plazzi Used in: it:Andrea Plazzi, it:n:Editoria e fumetto. Intervista ad Andrea Plazzi, d:Q3615951 Reason: Best in scope imho. -- Jaqen (talk)  Support Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Ввласенко (talk) on 2020-07-15 10:15 (UTC) Scope: La Badia Di Orvieto in springtime  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Andrei (talk) on 2020-07-15 11:06 (UTC) Scope: Equality March 2018 in Kraków in front of the Saint Mary Basilica Used in: Wikidata  Support Seems like a useful juxtaposition to me. Though I am thinking about whether we'd want to have a scope for this juxtaposition for every year. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ on 2020-07-15 12:59 (UTC) Scope: Pante Baro Grand Mosque  Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Andrei (talk) on 2020-07-15 13:02 (UTC) Scope: Equality March 2019 in Katowice participants Used in: Wikidata Reason: The most clear and the best composed photo in the scope. -- Andrei (talk)  Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2020-07-15 16:16 (UTC) Scope: Terp (Hegebeintum) Memorial plaque in the road to the church of Imilia Josina van Nijsten (1660-1735).  Question I'm a little confused. Is this a memorial plaque for a church or for this individual? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)  Comment Oh, I get it: It's a plaque on the road to the church, not a plaque to the church that's in the road. Though is this a road or a path? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Answer: The brick path leads to the church on top of the mound. The path is therefore part of the national monument. If I'm not mistaken, there are 26 commemorative plaques of the distinguished family in the access road.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2020-07-15 19:49 (UTC) Scope: St Peter's church, Rock Ferry Used in: Wikidata:Q15979499  Comment File:South side of St Peter's church, Rock Ferry.jpg shows an entire side of the church, so it seems more useful in this scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)  Comment I would agree, but it doesn't show the spire to best advantage and gives undue prominence to the vestry, effectively an out-building. Also, it shows ugly, ugly, hideous wheely bins.Rodhullandemu (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-07-16 05:00 (UTC) Scope: Musée Ingres-Bourdelle - The allegory of Music - Bourdelle  Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 05:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-07-16 05:01 (UTC) Scope: Monument to the combatants of 1870, in Toulouse by Théophile Barrau  Comment Please check the scope --Llez (talk) 05:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)  Done Oops, thanks... Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2020-07-16 05:03 (UTC) Scope: Musée Ingres-Bourdelle - Il ritorno del figliol prodigo - Marcello Fogolino (The Return of the Prodigal Son)  Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 05:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2020-07-16 05:50 (UTC) Scope: Nassarius bimaculosus (Two Spotted Dog Whelk), shell  Support Useful & used --Andrei (talk) 07:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Ввласенко (talk) on 2020-07-16 09:06 (UTC) Scope: Lyhdynkantajat at west side of Helsinki Central Station Used in: Helsinki, Helsingi pearaudteejaam, Hlavná železničná stanica Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · ☕ on 2020-07-16 15:26 (UTC) Scope: Istiqamah Grand Mosque dome Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2020-07-16 16:28 (UTC) Scope: Opening Automobile windshield at an Opel 1,2 l from 1933 Used in: de: Ausstellfenster Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2020-07-16 16:42 (UTC) Scope: Rear of Opel 1,2 Liter from 1933 Used in: de: Opel 1,2 Liter, de: Cabriolimousine Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2020-07-16 17:01 (UTC) Scope: Dashboard of DKW F5 from 1936 Used in: it: DKW F5 Open for review.

Pending Most valued review candidates

Amy Jackson

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Yjenith (talk) on 2012-03-11 23:25 (UTC) Scope: Amy Jackson  Oppose Copyrighted, no evidence of permission, so I am nominating for deletion. (Also, not geocoded!) cmadler (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)  Comment This photograph is released under creative commons Share like 3.0 license. The more appropriate copyright tag is added. Also geocoded for further review. --Yjenith (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC) Now  Support cmadler (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)  Comment Who is this girl actually?--MrPanyGoff 20:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC) IMDB page cmadler (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC) This link doesn't helps a lot... I tend to oppose even I feel this nomination as some kind of insult.--MrPanyGoff 21:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)  Info She is essentially a Bollywood actress. Article seems acceptable in en:WP (and 3 other WP), see en:Amy Jackson. --Myrabella (talk) 07:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC) She is essentially a beauty pageant titleholder and not an actress at all. Since 2010 she just has tried to launch an actress career. There are thousands of girls like her. It seems that we have to place all of them in one group together with Sophia Loren, Gérard Philipe, Michel Piccoli, Jeremy Irons, Robert De Niro, Charles Chaplin, Claude Monet... Shame on all of us... We do nothing here. Alas, we have no choice since we work under the dictate of the crowd. Unfortunately, from a long time many articles in wikipedia cannot be used for reference at all. These articles can be marked for deletion.--MrPanyGoff 09:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC) Actually, this nomination seems quite promotional, linked with this new movie release: en:Ekk Deewana Tha where she has the leading female role. --Myrabella (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. MrPanyGoff 22:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)  Comment Because of the two VI in this scope I open this MVR. This photo here is the initial VI.--MrPanyGoff 08:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)  Support OK, this one is better. Yann (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2012 (UTC)  Comment but you can't even see her face properly cause she is not looking at the camera, the crop is unfortunate cause the top of her head is missing,the blur is excessive with parts of her hair and right shoulder being blured. Just wanna know why you think this is better so atleast I can be clear about the criteria for a picture being VI.Boseritwik (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)  Support I still support this one as best in scope and meeting all criteria. Certainly the edges of her hair and right shoulder are blurred, but her face is in focus at a high resolution. Also important to the present comparison, in the other image her forehead, chin, and cheeks are washed out by the flash/glare. cmadler (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Scores: 1. Amy jackson.jpg: +2 (current VI within same scope) <-- 2. Amy Jackson attends press conference for 'Thaandavam' at London 04.jpg: +0 (second VI within same scope) <-- => File:Amy jackson.jpg: Promoted. File:Amy Jackson attends press conference for 'Thaandavam' at London 04.jpg: Declined. --MrPanyGoff 05:51, 3 July 2012 (UTC)  Info Opening MVR. The other nomination can be found here. pandakekok9 08:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)  Support - The other one has higher resolution, but we're supposed to judge the photos at review size, and in review size, this photo is much bigger. I also prefer the background, but that could be because I have sore eyes tonight. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 17:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: pandakekok9 on 2020-04-04 08:38 (UTC) Scope: Amy Jackson Reason: Compared to the current VI, I think this photo represents the scope better, because it has a higher resolution. And IMO, the subject facing the camera is more valuable. -- pandakekok9  Comment I get a failure message about the image file containing errors if I try to open the full-resolution image in Firefox. --Bobulous (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)  Comment Ignore my last comment; a machine reboot and a forced page refresh caused it to finally load the image without error. Must have been a bad download followed by a stubborn local cache. --Bobulous ( talk) 20:56, 7 April 2020 (UTC)  Support higher resolution & facing the camera --Arne (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)  Oppose per my remarks on the other one. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)  Comment a crop of this one to exclude some of her body would split the difference and be best, imo. Buidhe (talk) 17:34, 2 June 2020 (UTC) @Buidhe: What do you think of this crop? pandakekok9 06:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 17:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Theresa May, portrait photograph

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Yann (talk) on 2017-02-19 18:52 (UTC) Scope: Theresa May, portrait photograph Reason: UK Prime Minister. Best image, much better quality than her official portrait. Studio shot, so not geocoded. Used on many projects. -- Yann (talk)  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Palauenc05 (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC) MVR: see also Commons:Valued image candidates/Theresa May (2015) (cropped).jpg  Oppose in favor of Commons:Valued image candidates/Theresa May (2015) (cropped).jpg. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 17:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: AlbanGeller (talk) on 2020-06-01 12:57 (UTC) Scope: Theresa May in 2015, portrait photograph 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) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 17:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Oryx gazella

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Lycaon (talk) on 2009-02-12 16:54 (UTC) Scope: Oryx gazella (Gemsbok) Used in: en:Gemsbok, nl:Gemsbok, simple:Gemsbok, uk:Орікс  Support Pose is less interesting, but I think the animal is better shown than on the previously nominated picture. --Eusebius (talk) 17:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Lycaon (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 17:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2020-06-22 08:00 (UTC) Scope: Oryx gazella (Gemsbok) male  Support much better picture --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 17:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

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.