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

32,013 closed valued image candidates
Closed as				Nominations
Promoted			28,417 (88.8%)
Undecided			1,632 (5.1%)
Declined			1,964 (6.1%)

New valued image nominations

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: MB-one (talk) on 2018-08-13 16:23 (UTC) Scope: Chevrolet Vectra sedan (Delta platform), rear 3/4 view Used in: pt:Chevrolet Vectra  Comment, I think the perspective in the background needs correcting. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)  Comment. Besides, the perspective for the car is not good. It hardly shows the actual shape. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2018 (UTC)  Oppose. As I said: the picture does not show the car as it really is. Therefore, the photo is not valuable in my opinion. Maybe there are other opinions. Please discuss. -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Declined if the last vote was added no later than 00:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: MB-one (talk) on 2018-08-14 13:37 (UTC) Scope: General view of Muttrah Fort Used in: ar:حصن مطرح Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Martinvl (talk) on 2018-08-14 14:33 (UTC) Scope: Category:Chapman’s Peak Drive near Cape Town Used in: Category:Chapman's Peak Category:Chapman’s Peak Drive af:Twee Oseane-maraton af:Chapmanspiek-rylaan ceb:Chapman's Peak de:Chapman’s Peak Drive fr:Chapman's Peak wikidata:Q501723 wikidata:Q21156258 Reason: One of the most spectacular drives in South Africa, passing through a UNESCO World Heritage Site that also hosts part of the annual "Two Oceans" ultramarathons. The sea in this image is part of the Atlantic Ocean while the Indian Ocean is 11 km to the south east of this spot. -- Martinvl (talk) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2018-08-14 21:08 (UTC) Scope: Our Lady Chapel of Penhors, from the south-west. Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2018-08-14 21:35 (UTC) Scope: Triumphal Gate of Notre-Dame-de-Penhors Chapel from the North. Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2018-08-15 09:54 (UTC) Scope: Calvary Chapel Notre-Dame-de-Penhors from west. Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: ~Moheen (keep talking) on 2018-08-16 04:00 (UTC) Scope: Coin-operated binocular, Cape of Good Hope Used in: See global usage  Support Description could be expanded and the scope is abstract but still best in scope, useful and used. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-08-16 04:52 (UTC) Scope: Capitole de Toulouse, bust of Nicolas Bachelier  Support Useful and Used. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: B dash (talk<9/span>) on 2018-08-16 07:14 (UTC) Scope: Leaned post box in Taipei after Typhoon Soudelor Used in: en:Typhoon Soudelor  Comment Interesting but it would be necessary to add a geocodage and a caption in English.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:51, 17 August 2018 (UTC)  Done--B dash (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:09, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 00:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-08-16 21:32 (UTC) Scope: Sundial at St Bartholomew's church, Thurstaston - close views Used in: en:Listed buildings in Thurstaston  Comment Sundial at St Bartholomew's church, Thurstaston 1.jpg Is the best image because the one to argue that it is a solar frame. You have to see the plateau otherwise it is only a column. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:56, 17 August 2018 (UTC) ** Comment Well @Charlesjsharp: for some reason suggested that you couldn't see the sundial. It's certainly visible in this image. However, I think it can be fixed by adding "close views" to the scope. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)  Oppose You can't see the sundial which is on top of the stone! Charles (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)  Comment@Charlesjsharp: You can't see it because it is not there. From the HE listing: "Brass plate, gnomon missing.". I've now been there twice and the brass plate is also missing. Do you want mne to go back today because I will be in that area but it's another hour on my trip. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:04, 18 August 2018 (UTC)  Comment Unfortunately, if there's no sundial, I suggest you can't have a scope of a sundial. Charles (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)  Comment Argue that with Historic England. They list it as a sundial, not a post. I'm happy to call it a sundial. Meanwhile, could you stop reviewing images you do not understand? Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Declined if the last vote was added no later than 00:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-08-17 04:40 (UTC) Scope: Eumorpha fasciata fasciata mounted specimen male ventral  Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-08-17 04:42 (UTC) Scope: Capitole de Toulouse, bust of Pierre de Fermat  Support Useful and used.--Peulle (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-08-17 04:43 (UTC) Scope: Courtier in red fur hat by Francesco d'Ubertino Fondation Bemberg Toulouse  Support, useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:40, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-08-17 11:05 (UTC) Scope: Merchant Navy memorial, Liverpool Used in: en:Liverpool Naval Memorial, wikidata:Q54328883  Support, useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:41, 17 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2018-08-17 18:49 (UTC) Scope: Cochlodina laminata ssp. laminata, shell  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:56, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-08-18 04:49 (UTC) Scope: Sphinx gordius mounted specimen female dorsal  Support of course.--Peulle (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-08-18 04:50 (UTC) Scope: Château de Merville, Haute-Garonne, France – Façade  Support, useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-08-18 04:52 (UTC) Scope: Capitole de Toulouse, L'été ou Les Faucheurs, by Henri Martin  Comment, oops, it's missing from the scope category. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:41, 18 August 2018 (UTC)  Done Sorry I changed it twice, he now has his own category. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)  Support Used and useful.--Peulle (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2018 (UTC)  Support, is good now - useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:14, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Peulle (talk) on 2018-08-18 11:16 (UTC) Scope: M32 sailing boats racing in Match Cup Norway 2018, part of the World Match Racing Tour Used in: en:World Match Racing Tour, is:World Match Racing Tour Reason: I know I've posted a lot of images from this arrangement, and I wasn't sure any of them would stand out from the herd as a good illustration of the actual event, but on reflection I think this one does: It shows several boats racing as well as an umpire boat monitoring proceedings, so I think this is a good illustration of the race on that day. Would love to hear your views on this if you have any. -- Peulle (talk)  Comment I trust you to choose the image but it would be good if there is only one category of reference in the scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC) I see your point. Which do you think fits better? On the one hand, the WMRT category could contain other types of images, not just boats racing. On the other hand, the "M32" category might be better represented by an image showing a single boat. Would perhaps "M32 boats racing" be the best scope?--Peulle (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC) I will only keep World Match Racing Tour it gives a historical side to the image --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)  Done :) --Peulle (talk) 08:54, 20 August 2018 (UTC)  Support Perfect for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:12, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Famberhorst (talk) on 2018-08-18 17:13 (UTC) Scope: Agapanthus 'White Heaven' Pistil and stamens of the flower.  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2018-08-18 18:26 (UTC) Scope: Hydatina physis (Striped Paper Bubble), shell  Support Useful and Used. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: T.Bednarz (talk) on 2018-08-18 19:44 (UTC) Scope: Players of Cracovia, Adrian Danek Used in: pl:Adrian Danek wikidata item  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-08-18 20:50 (UTC) Scope: Irby Hall Used in: See global usage  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2018-08-18 22:54 (UTC) Scope: Blacklick Creek (Ohio) Used in: en:Blacklick Creek (Ohio)  Comment - I see 3 pics in scope that seem equally useful. Please make an argument for how this is best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC) It is a broad scope. This picture isn't the headwaters, a confluence, an exceptionally shallow or deep spot. It's how I would say this creek looks on an average day and it's average width. This scope also doesn't disallow a scope of confluence of Blacklick Creek (Ohio) with various creeks or Headwaters of Blacklick Creek (Ohio) if they were notable enough for a VI. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-08-19 04:51 (UTC) Scope: Sphinx gordius mounted specimen female ventral  Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 08:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-08-19 04:53 (UTC) Scope: Izaut-de-l'Hôtel, France - Facade of church Our Lady of Mount Carmel  Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 08:59, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-08-19 04:55 (UTC) Scope: Virgin and Child by Vittore Carpaccio Fondation Bemberg Toulouse  Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 09:01, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-08-19 09:59 (UTC) Scope: Pensby Hall Used in: en:Listed buildings in Heswall  Comment Why not File:Pensby Hall front elevation.jpg? -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 17:56, 19 August 2018 (UTC)  Comment I looked at the JPGs and saw compression artefacts in the clouds and sky, and since I'm nominating this for QI as well, didn't want to end up with an inconsistent situation. Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)  Support I see your point now. Best in scope. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: —Vensatry (Ping me) on 2018-08-19 12:42 (UTC) Scope: Kathleen Hanna Used in: Kathleen Hanna, קתלין האנה  Comment We need to lose the watermark. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)  Comment Erasing signature --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Thank you! —Vensatry (Ping me) 17:46, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: T.Bednarz (talk) on 2018-08-19 16:19 (UTC) Scope: Javi Hernández Used in: en:Javi Hernández pl:Javi Hernández it:Javi Hernández nl:Javi Hernández tg:Хави Эрнандес wikidata item  Support Sure, this works.--Peulle (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2018-08-19 16:22 (UTC) Scope: Oldfield farmhouse, Heswall Used in: en:Listed buildings in Heswall  Support, useful and best in scope. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2018-08-19 17:02 (UTC) Scope: Vrijhof 7 (Ferwert) Poartewente,( Gate to the church).  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:04, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: -- DeFacto (talk). on 2018-08-19 17:22 (UTC) Scope: Old Dungeness Lighthouse from the south-west Used in: en:Dungeness Lighthouse  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: -- DeFacto (talk). on 2018-08-19 17:24 (UTC) Scope: Dungeness Lighthouse from the west Used in: en:Dungeness Lighthouse  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Sharpery (talk) on 2018-08-19 18:33 (UTC) Scope: Akademik Ioffe (ship, 1988)  Support Most useful in scope. I don't think the category "cruise ships in Canada" is correct, though.--Peulle (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2018 (UTC)  Comment @Peulle: Yeah, I was a bit uncertain as to whether or not to add that category. The ship was originally built as a research vessel but it's since been refitted and is now used as an expedition cruise ship (proof). Don't know if that qualifies it to the category or not though – should I leave it or remove it? Sharpery (talk) 00:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Leave it in. If it's being used as a cruise ship for paying tourists, it's a cruise ship. :) --Peulle (talk) 07:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Masum-al-Hasan (talk) on 2018-08-20 04:51 (UTC) Scope: Rose Garden Palace  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-08-20 04:49 (UTC) Scope: Eumorpha capronnieri mounted specimen male dorsal  Support Useful and Used. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-08-20 04:50 (UTC) Scope: Izaut-de-l'Hôtel, France - The war memorial  Support Useful and Used. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 13:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2018-08-20 04:52 (UTC) Scope: Christ on the cross by Louis de Planet Musée du Vieux Toulouse  Support Only in scope, Useful and Used. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2018-08-20 15:26 (UTC) Scope: Dublin Methodist Hospital viewed from the west Used in: en:Dublin Methodist Hospital  Support Useful, used and best in scope. --Basotxerri (talk) 20:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2018-08-20 15:27 (UTC) Scope: Dublin Methodist Hospital Sign Used in: en:Dublin Methodist Hospital Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Sixflashphoto (talk) on 2018-08-20 15:30 (UTC) Scope: Panera Bread Delivery Vehicle Used in: en:Panera Bread  Comment Shouldn't there be a category for the vehicle model, too? --Basotxerri (talk) 20:27, 20 August 2018 (UTC) I thought about that but since this is the only one on commons I thought it would be alright without a category for itself. I also admit I don't know (beyond that it is a Ford) what model it is. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Adámoz (talk) on 2018-08-20 17:59 (UTC) Scope: The Lamp in castle Vrchotovy Janovice in The Czech Republic Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2018-08-20 18:45 (UTC) Scope: Hydatina albocincta (White Banded Paper Bubble), shell  Support Best in Scope, Useful and Used. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Basotxerri (talk) on 2018-08-20 20:24 (UTC) Scope: Serles, in Stubai Alps, Tyrol, Austria, view direction SW Used in: de:Serles and others  Support Useful, Used and Best in Scope. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Hispalois (talk) on 2018-08-20 22:06 (UTC) Scope: Gold medals of Mary I of England Used in: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fidei_defensor 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.

The Africa Cafe, front

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: ~Moheen (keep talking) on 2018-08-12 04:34 (UTC) Scope: The Africa Cafe, front Used in: See global usage  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: ~Moheen (keep talking) on 2018-08-12 04:35 (UTC) Scope: The Africa Cafe, front Used in: See global usage Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Tashichho Dzong, Bhutan (general view)

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: MrPanyGoff on 2011-06-02 17:54 (UTC) Scope: Tashichho Dzong, Bhutan (general view)  Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:00, 3 June 2011 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 20:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)  Oppose - Not as useful in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)  Oppose per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 00:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Bgag (talk) on 2018-08-14 18:51 (UTC) Scope: Tashichho Dzong, Bhutan (general view) NW view  Support - More useful in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 16 August 2018 (UTC)  Support per Ikan.--Peulle (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2018 (UTC) Open for review.

Pending valued image set candidates

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