Commons:Valued image candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: COM:VIC

Skip to image nominations Skip to image nominations Most valued reviews Skip to most valued reviews Skip to set nominations Skip to set nominations
Valued image seal.svg

These are the candidates to become valued images. Please note that this is not the same as featured pictures or quality images. If you simply want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at photography critiques.

Single images can be proposed for valued image (VI) status. Candidates must be proposed as being the most valuable of all Commons' images within a specified scope. Judging is carried out according to the valued image criteria.

A Most Valued Review (MVR) is opened where there are two or more candidates competing within essentially the same scope.

The rules for promotion can be found at Commons:Valued image candidates/Promotion rules.

An image which has previously been declined can be renominated within the same scope only if the issues leading to the original decline have been addressed. Previously nominated images that were closed as "undecided" can be renominated at any time. Once a candidate achieves VI or VIS status it can normally be demoted only if some better candidate replaces it during an MVR.

If you would like to nominate an image for VI status, please do so following the instructions below. If you are proposing a better candidate within essentially the same scope as an image which already has VI status, please open an MVR.

How to nominate an image for VI status[edit]

Nominations will be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. Please read those criteria before submitting an image to help cut down on the number of candidates that have a low chance of success. Make sure you understand the concept of scope and how to choose the correct scope for your nomination.

Please make sure that your proposed image fulfills all of the necessary criteria before nominating it. For example, if it needs to be geocoded, do that in advance. If no appropriate categories exist, create and link them beforehand. Although some reviewers may help by fixing minor issues during the review process, it is your responsibility as nominator to ensure your image ticks all the necessary boxes before you propose it. If you nominate an image that ignores one of the criteria, don't be surprised if it fails VI review.

Adding a new nomination (image)[edit]

Step 1: Copy the image name into this box (excluding the File: prefix), at the end of the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Valued image candidates/My-image-filename.jpg. Then click on the "Create new nomination" button.


Step 2: Follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save the resulting VIC subpage.

Step 3: Manually add the candidate image towards the end of Commons:Valued image candidates/candidate list (under the heading "New valued image nominations"), as the last parameter in the VICs template. Click here, and append the following line as the last parameter of the relevant section:

|My-image-filename.jpg

so that it looks like this: 

{{VICs
 ...
 |My-image-filename.jpg
}}

and save the candidate list.

Renomination[edit]

Declined VICs can be renominated by any registered user, but only after one or more of the root cause(s) leading to a decline has/have been addressed. Undecided VICs can be renominated as is although it is still recommended to consider and fix issue(s) which may have hindered a promotion of the candidate in the previous review.

Besides fixing issues with the previous nomination the following procedure shall be followed upon renomination.

Step 1: Edit the candidate subpage you intend to renominate. All declined and undecided VICs are placed in either Category:Declined valued image candidates, or Category:Undecided valued image candidates and sorted by the date of the previous nomination.

Step 2: Replace the previous nomination date and time by pasting in 

|date={{subst:VI-time}}

Step 3: Replace the "undecided" or "declined" status with "nominated" (or "discussed" if you intend to add it to a Most Valued Review).

Step 4: If the previous nominator was a different user replace the nominator parameter with 

|nominator=~~~

Step 5: If the candidate does not already have an archive link to previous reviews: Create one using the following procedure.

  • Cut the text in the previous review section (leave the closing braces "}}")
  • replace the review parameter with
|review=
{{subst:VIC-archive}}
}}
  • Save the page.
  • There is now a red link to Previous reviews. Click the link to create the archive subpage and paste in the previous reviews.
  • Save the previous reviews archive page

Step 6: Add the candidate to the candidates list.

How to open a Most Valued Review[edit]

There must be at least two candidates competing within essentially the same scope to open an MVR. Each needs its own VIC subpage, which should be created as above if it does not already exist, but with status set to "discussed". Then, add the following section at the end of the page Commons:Valued image candidates/Most valued review candidate list: 

=== Scope ===
{{VICs
  |candidate1.jpg
  |candidate2.jpg
}}

where Scope is the scope of both images, and candidate1.jpg and candidate2.jpg are the respective candidates. If need be, also remove the relevant image(s) from the list in Pending valued image candidates

If one of the candidates is an existing VI within essentially the same scope, the original VIC subpage is re-opened for voting by changing its status to status=discussed and new reviews are appended to the original VIC subpage. However, any original votes are not counted within the MVR.

The status parameter of each candidate should remain set to "discussed" while the MVR is ongoing.

How to review the candidates[edit]

How to review an image[edit]

Any registered user can review the valued image candidates. Comments are welcome from everyone, but neither the nominator nor the original image author may vote (that does not exclude voting from users who have edited the image with a view to improving it).

Nominations should be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. Please read those and the page on scope carefully before reviewing. Reviewing here is a serious business, and a reviewer who just breezes by to say "I like it!" is not adding anything of value. You need to spend the time to check the nomination against every one of the six VI criteria, and you also need to carry out searches to satisfy yourself on the "most valuable" criterion.

Review procedure[edit]

  • On the review page the image is presented in the review size. You are welcome to view the image in full resolution by following the image links, but bear in mind that it is the appearance of the image at review size which matters.
  • Check the candidate carefully against each of the six VI criteria. The criteria are mandatory, and to succeed the candidate has to satisfy all six.
  • Use the where used field, if provided, to study the current usage of the candidate in Wikimedia projects. If you find usage of interest do add relevant links to the nomination.
  • Look for other images of the same kind of subject by following the links to relevant categories in the image page, and to any Commons galleries.
    • If you find another image which is already a VI within essentially the same scope, the candidate and the existing VI should be moved to Most Valued Review (MVR) to determine which one is the more valued.
    • If you find one or more other images which in your opinion are equally or more valued images within essentially the same scope, you should nominate these images as well and move all the candidates to an MVR.
  • Once you have made up your mind, edit the review page and add your vote or comment to the review parameter as follows:
You type You get When
*{{Comment}} My Comment. -- ~~~~ You have a comment.
*{{Info}} My information. -- ~~~~ You have information.
*{{Neutral}} Reason for neutral vote. -- ~~~~
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Reason for neutral vote. -- Example
 You are uncertain or wish to record a neutral vote.
*{{Oppose}} Reason for opposing vote. -- ~~~~
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Reason for opposing vote. -- Example
 You think that the candidate fails one or more of the six mandatory criteria.
*{{Question}} My question. -- ~~~~ You have a question.
*{{Support}} Reason for supporting. -- ~~~~
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Reason for supporting. -- Example
 You think that the candidate meets all of the six mandatory criteria.
  • If the nomination fails one of the six criteria, but in a way that can be fixed, you can optionally let the nominator know what needs to be done using the {{VIF}} template.
  • Your comment goes immediately before the final closing braces "}}" on the page.
How to update the status
  • Finally, change the status of the nomination if appropriate:
    • status=nominated When no votes or only neutral votes have been added to the review field (blue image border).
    • status=supported When there is at least one {{Support}} vote but no {{Oppose}} votes (light green image border).
    • status=opposed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote but no {{Support}} votes (red image border).
    • status=discussed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote and one {{Support}} vote (yellow image border).


Remember the criteria: 1. Most valuable 2. Suitable scope 3. Illustrates well 4. Fully described 5. Geocoded 6. Well categorized.

Changes in scope during the review period[edit]

The nominator is allowed to make changes in scope as the review proceeds, for example in response to reviewer votes or comments. Whenever a scope is changed the nominator should post a signed comment at the bottom of the review area using {{VIC-scope-change|old scope|new scope|--~~~~}}, and should also leave a note on the talk page of all existing voters asking them to reconsider their vote. A support vote made before the change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn.

You can submit new nominations starting on COM:VIC.

Pending valued image candidates[edit]

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache
48,536 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
 43,415 (89.4%) 
Undecided
  
 2,739 (5.6%) 
Declined
  
 2,382 (4.9%) 


New valued image nominations[edit]

   
Breviceps gibbosus Cape Rain Froga - Cape Town 2.JPG
View promotion
Nominated by:
Massimo510 (talk) on 2022-06-25 7:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Breviceps gibbosus (Cape rain frog) - South Africa
Used in:
See global usage
Reason:
Used not only in the page for its own species but also in the page for its family -- Massimo510 (talk)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Per COM:VIS, there are domain-specific scope guidelines for animals, including amphibians, advising that the scope be in the form of scientific name (vernacular name), sub-scope. Please revise. --GRDN711 (talk) 12:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The scope is now acceptable but it requires a geocoding of the image in the caption. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment ok i have a added a caption to the image showing the location let me know if it is acceptable.Massimo510 (talk)

talk]])talk]]) 05:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This nomination is appropriate for VI consideration but I agree with Archaeodontosaurus that GPS coordinates should be added to the image description per COM:VICR(5). --GRDN711 (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment An estimated geocoding would seem to me sufficient in this case.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Its habitat range is quite small so i will try to find the estimated location and how would i be able to mark it as estimated loction Massimo510 (talk) 08:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Template:Location for {{Location |1= |2= |3= }} to add GPS coordinates.
Template:Location estimated for {{Location estimated}} as an option to place a notice that GPS coordinates are estimated and not uploaded from camera metadata. --GRDN711 (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Approximant location has been added to the image let me know if it is good Massimo510 (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
Terdeghem.- Régulateur centrifuge du moulin en brique Steenmeulen (10).jpg
View
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2022-06-28 10:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Mill governor in Steenmeulen windmill, Terdeghem.- France

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The Category:Mill governors linked in the scope is too broad. Will be useful to create a CAT for this particular location or type/vintage of governor. --Tagooty (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I've now done some reading on mill governors. They are Centrifugal governors. Such governors are also used in steam engines, clocks, etc. Is the design of centrifugal governors used in mills different from other uses? Did French mills use a design different from mills in Netherlands and other countries? Are these governors of a particular model made by one manufacturer? The scope will depend on the answers to these questions. I request others to give their opinions. --Tagooty (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 0 support, 0 oppose =>
undecided. A1Cafel (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
Striped albatross (Appias olferna olferna) female underside cr.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-07-01 08:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Appias olferna olferna (Striped albatross) female underside

Symbol support vote.svg Support Best om scope --Tagooty (talk) 02:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. A1Cafel (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
Mülheim-Kärlich, Historienstein - Steppenelefant (2022-07-01 Sp).JPG
View promotion
Nominated by:
Spurzem (talk) on 2022-07-01 12:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Detail "Steppenelefant" of Historienstein Raiffeisenplatz Kärlich by Paul Milles
What's going on again? A monument is not a biological textbook. For a while I thought the bullying was going away. -- Spurzem (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you choose to use an obsolete taxonomy, please use correct spelling. @Archaeodontosaurus: Can you advise whether an obsolete taxonomy is suitable for this VI please. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The taxonomy was taken from a 1981 publication by a local archaeologist. In order to avoid a dispute about possible new scientific terms, I have reduced the scope to a neutral formulation. -- Spurzem (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. A1Cafel (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
Shlomo Hillel 1970.png
View promotion
Nominated by:
Ezarateesteban on 2022-07-01 23:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Shlomo Hillel
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. A1Cafel (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
(Toulouse) Palais Niel - buste de François Lucas par Pierre Vigan 1811.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-02 04:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Buste de François Lucas par Pierre Vigan, Palais Niel Toulouse
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
Erinnyis ello encantada MHNT CUT 2010 0 525 - Puerto Ayora, Santa Cruz Island, Galápagos, Ecuador - male dorsal.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-02 04:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Erinnyis ello encantada specimen - male dorsal
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
(Agen) Coloquio galante - Francisco de Goya - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-02 04:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Coloquio galante - Francisco de Goya - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen (Galant conversation)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question A very similar Goya painting, known as in English as The flirtation is in the Marquis of La Romana Collection, Madrid, Spain. Is this one a copy? It does not look to be by the same artist. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question RSVP Archaeodontosaurus Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have seen the painting but I have no information other than that of the two museums. There must be two versions, it's quite common, that's why we give the place of exposure in the scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The the Spanish Goya website: "There is another version of The Flirtation in the Agen Museum, considered to be an original Goya by some authors such as Gudiol (although it is likely to be a copy)." I 100% agree but your nomination is OK! If it were me, I would add attr.. Gallant colloquium is not English. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe we could put Amorous discussion --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "conversation" instead of "discussion"? I go back and forth about whether "gallant" should be used or not. I'm almost thinking "galant", as in style galant; this is probably still the right era for it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thank you. I just looked at the two files of this painting on Commons and then did a web search. Most of the files I found outside commons show a yellow color in the sky. Do you figure that's just a function of how the painting was lit when those photos were taken? Because otherwise, the two photos look equally good at review size, which would give the edge to the larger photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For each image it is necessary to make a white balance, some do not do it and the images are yellowish and dull. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 22:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Muiden, Naarder Poortbrug. 09-05-2022. (actm.) 01.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2022-07-02 04:31 (UTC)
Scope:

Muiden Naarderpoort bridge over the Naardertrekvaart. (South south

west side.)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
Breviceps namaquensis 1.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Massimo510 (talk) on 2022-07-02 08:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Breviceps namaquensis (Namaqua rain frog) - South Africa
Used in:
See global usage
Reason:
Best in scope -- Massimo510 (talk)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 22:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Elephant hawkmoth (Deilephila elpenor) male.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-07-02 13:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Deilephila elpenor (Elephant hawkmoth) male, lateral view
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 22:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Asian pintail (Acisoma panorpoides) female Phuket.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-07-02 15:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Acisoma panorpoides (Asian pintail) female
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 22:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Zaaddozen van een Ratelaar (Rhinanthus) 26-06-2022. (d.j.b) 02.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2022-07-02 15:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Rhinanthus minor seed box (rattle).
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Excellent and useful -- Spurzem (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 22:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
La glanerie Pont de la Libération (2).JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2022-07-02 16:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Pont de la Libération (La Glanerie), North west side, Belgique.
  • Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 19:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 22:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Blue marsh hawk (Orthetrum glaucum) male Phuket.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-07-02 20:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Orthetrum glaucum (Blue marsh hawk) male
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 22:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Rumes le mémorial du motard égaré (2).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2022-07-02 21:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Mémorial du Motard égaré (La Glanerie), front and left side. (Belgique)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 22:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Cyriopagopus minax MHNT Thaillande.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-03 04:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Cyriopagopus minax specimen - male.jpg
Reason:
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think the images should be side by side with a divider so it doesn't look like two different spiders. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I edited the captions for better understanding. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Open for review.
    (Agen) Portrait de Charles III d'Espagne - Mariano Salvador Maella - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-03 04:31 (UTC)
    Scope:
    ‎‎Preparatory study for the painting "Portrait of Charles III by Mariano Salvador Maella - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen
    Open for review.
    (Agen) Cathédrale Saint-Caprais - Statue de Saint Caprais 1844 - Louis Rochet PalissyPM47000501.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-03 04:32 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Saint-Caprais Cathedral - Statue of Saint Caprasius of Agen 1844 by Louis Rochet
    Open for review.
    Muiden, Florishaven. Herengracht 81. 09-05-2022. (actm.) 02.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2022-07-03 04:40 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Florishaven Herengracht 81 Muiden.
    Open for review.
    Elne Place de la République.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Palauenc05 (talk) on 2022-07-03 09:13 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Place de la République in Elne, France (view from north)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 09:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Open for review.
    Common flangetail (Ictinogomphus decoratus melaenops) Phi Phi.jpg
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-07-03 08:56 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Ictinogomphus decoratus melaenops (Common flangetail)
    Reason:
    existing VI same ssp with lateral view. -- Charlesjsharp (talk)
    Open for review.
    Greater bluewing (Rhyothemis plutonia) male Phuket.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-07-03 09:04 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Rhyothemis plutonia (Greater bluewing) male

    Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful and used. --GRDN711 (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Open for review.
    Green metalwing (Neurobasis chinensis) male 2.jpg
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-07-03 09:32 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Neurobasis chinensis (Green metalwing) male flashing hindwing
    Open for review.
    Ingang Paterskerk in Rekem (deelgemeente) van Lanaken provincie Limburg in België.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Famberhorst (talk) on 2022-07-03 16:52 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Main entrance of the Paterskerk in Rekem
    Open for review.
    2022-05-06 Empfang der Eisbären Berlin im Roten Rathaus by Sandro Halank–084.jpg
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Sandro Halank (talk) on 2022-07-03 17:42 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Marco Baßler
    Used in:
    de:Marco Baßler, d:Q67477068
    Open for review.
    2000-06-10 02 Watermen unloading lobsters on Tangier Island, Virginia USA.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    GRDN711 (talk) on 2022-07-03 16:51 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Watermen unloading catch on Tangier Island, Virginia USA
    Reason:
    Tangier is one of the few inhabited, low lying islands in the Chesapeake Bay of Virginia. It has a unique history and a sustaining industry of fishing and tourism. With climate change, the Chesapeake is rising and the island and way of life may disappear within a few years. -- GRDN711 (talk)
    Open for review.
    Katholische Pfarrkirche St. Bartholomäus Kettig (2009-07-19 Sp).jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Spurzem (talk) on 2022-07-03 19:55 (UTC)
    Scope:
    St. Bartholomäus (Kettig) in 2009, view from southeast
    Open for review.
    Groningen (stad), station Groningen. 13-06-2022. (actm.) 01.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2022-07-04 04:40 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Railway station Groningen Detail of the upper part of the main building. (North north west side.)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope. Beautiful image, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 08:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Open for review.
    Erinnyis ello encantada MHNT CUT 2010 0 525 - Puerto Ayora, Santa Cruz Island, Galápagos, Ecuador - male ventral.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-04 05:01 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Erinnyis ello encantada specimen - male ventral
    Open for review.
    (Agen) Portrait du jeune Bridger Seward à la batte de cricket - Ozias Humphrey - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen Joconde00870006540.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-04 05:05 (UTC)
    Scope:
    ‎‎Portrait of young Bridger Seward with a cricket bat by Ozias Humphrey - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen
    Open for review.
    (Agen) Cathédrale Saint-Caprais - Orgue de tribune PalissyPM47000367.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-04 05:06 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Saint-Caprais Cathedral - Grandstand organ - Agen, Lot-et-Garonne, France.
    Open for review.
    Netanyahu official portrait.jpg
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    A1Cafel (talk) on 2022-07-04 06:59 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Official portrait of Benyamin Netanyahu
    • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Of course there are a lot of photos of him. How many are official portraits? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment IMO the portraits that released by the Government Press Office of Israel should be considered as "official"--A1Cafel (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Naturally. What I want to know is how many of them there are, so I can look at all of them and compare. If you'd like to be particularly helpful, you could link any others below. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Open for review.
    Little blue marsh hawk (Brachydiplax sobrina) young male Phuket 02.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-07-03 10:10 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Brachydiplax sobrina (Little blue marsh hawk) young male, lateral view
    Open for review.
    Rufous-backed marsh hawk (Brachydiplax chalybea) male Phi Phi.jpg
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-07-03 10:43 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Brachydiplax chalybea (Rufous-backed marsh hawk) male, dorsal
    Open for review.
    Red grasshawk (Neurothemis fluctuans) male Phuket 2.jpg
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-07-03 10:58 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Neurothemis fluctuans (Red grasshawk) male, lateral view
    Open for review.
    Mouchin blockhaus à la frontière franco-belge (2).jpg
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Pierre André (talk) on 2022-07-04 09:42 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Casemates de Mouchin, (west side) France
    Open for review.
    Banyuls Kriegerdenkmal Maillol.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Palauenc05 (talk) on 2022-07-04 14:41 (UTC)
    Scope:
    War memorial (bronze) by Aristide Maillol in Banyuls-sur-Mer
    Open for review.
    Basilique Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré, Quebéc, Canada 07.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Wilfredor (talk) on 2022-07-04 19:01 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Mosaics of the Basilica of Sainte-Anne-de-Beaupré
    Reason:
    Same reason that this image -- Wilfredor (talk)
    Open for review.
    2021-06-27 03 Chesapeake Bay deadrise workboat used for crabbing.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    GRDN711 (talk) on 2022-07-04 21:30 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Chesapeake Bay deadrise workboat
    Reason:

    Nomination best shows a Chesapeake Bay workboat built in the traditional deadrise design, being used in its intended working environment to catch blue crabs. Those deadrise design features include a flat V-shaped hull, low stern, small cabin, with a large open cockpit and work area. This one has a platform to protect from sun and bad weather.

    In trap fishing for crabs, a gaffe is used to catch the buoy attached to the crab trap. A small power winch is used to raise the trap and after the fisherman checks the crabs in the trap for size and sex, saleable crabs are placed in wooden bushel baskets. The trap is re-baited and returned to the bay. -- GRDN711 (talk)
    Open for review.
    (Agen) Vénus remettant sa ceinture à Junon - Mariano Salvador Maella - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-05 05:08 (UTC)
    Scope:
    ‎‎Venus handing her girdle to Juno by Mariano Salvador Maella - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Very good, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 09:03, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Open for review.
    Erinnyis ello encantada MHNT CUT 2010 0 525 - Puerto Ayora, Santa Cruz Island, Galápagos, Ecuador - female dorsal.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-05 05:10 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Erinnyis ello encantada specimen - female dorsal

    Symbol support vote.svg Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 05:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Open for review.
    (Agen) Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen - Salle 15 - Peinture française et espagnoles.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-05 05:12 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen Room 15 - French and Spanish paintings
    Open for review.
    Gloripallium pallium 02.jpg
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Llez (talk) on 2022-07-05 05:16 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Gloripallium pallium (Royal Cloak Scallop), left valve
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Various colors are represented among the shells in this category. How should we regard those? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Open for review.
    Kaisersesch, Kirche St. Pankratius; Südost (2020-09-07 Sp r).jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Spurzem (talk) on 2022-07-05 09:56 (UTC)
    Scope:
    St. Pankratius (Kaisersesch), view from south
    Open for review.
    Silverlined mudskipper (Periophthalmus argentilineatus) Phi Phi.jpg
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-07-05 21:02 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Periophthalmus argentilineatus (Silverlined mudskipper)
    Open for review.
    Muiden, Grote of Sint-Nicolaaskerk 09-05-2022. (actm.) 04.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2022-07-06 04:39 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Grote- of Nicolaaskerk, Muiden. entrance.
    Open for review.
    (Toulouse) Vulcain - Musée Saint-Raymond Ra 34 d.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-06 04:50 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Vulcain (Vulcan) - Musée Saint-Raymond Toulouse

    Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Open for review.
    Erinnyis ello encantada MHNT CUT 2010 0 525 - Puerto Ayora, Santa Cruz Island, Galápagos, Ecuador - female ventral.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-06 04:51 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Erinnyis ello encantada specimen - female ventral

    Symbol support vote.svg Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Open for review.
    (Agen) Le jugement de Pâris - Jean-François de Troy - Joconde00870001071 - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-06 04:53 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Le Jugement de Pâris by Jean-François de Troy - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen

    Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Open for review.
    Clathropsis lorenzinii 01.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Llez (talk) on 2022-07-06 05:16 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Clathropsis lorenzinii, shell
    Open for review.
    Synagoge Koblenz, Thoraschrein offen (2012-10-04 Sp).jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Spurzem (talk) on 2022-07-06 07:32 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Torah scrolls in the Synagogue of Koblenz

    Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Open for review.
    2018-08-31 01 FIREBOAT 1 (FB-1) - City of Vancouver, BC, Canada.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    GRDN711 (talk) on 2022-07-06 15:29 (UTC)
    Scope:
    City of Vancouver Fireboat 1 (FB-1) – starboard side
    Reason:
    Best starboard image of this fireboat by name. -- GRDN711 (talk)
    Open for review.
    萬興國小 侏羅紀彩繪牆.jpg
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Q28 (talk) on 2022-07-06 15:47 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Murals of Dinosauria skeletal diagrams
    Open for review.
    Karden, Georgskapelle innen (2019-03-31 Sp).JPG
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Spurzem (talk) on 2022-07-06 16:57 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Choir of Georgskapelle in Karden, built around 1340
    Open for review.
    Aire-sur-la-Lys - Hospice de Saint-Jean-Baptiste - 2022.jpg
    Review it! (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Pierre André (talk) on 2022-07-06 21:48 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Hôpital-Hospice Saint-Jean (Aire-sur-la-Lys), Portail, 52 Rue de Saint-Omer
    Open for review.



    Pending Most valued review candidates[edit]

    Yellow-wattled lapwing[edit]

       
    Yellow-wattled lapwing (Vanellus malabaricus) 2.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Charles (talk) on 2018-01-08 09:26 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Vanellus malabaricus (Yellow-wattled lapwing)

    ✓ Done sorry. Charles (talk) 11:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
    promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)    [reply]
    Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 22:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    Yellow-wattled lapwing (Vanellus malabaricus) Yala.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-05-16 13:03 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Vanellus malabaricus (Yellow-wattled lapwing)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm puzzled by this nomination. The other photo shows the legs, tail and structure of the wings better at review size, doesn't it? What's the advantage of this photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:36, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting delete.svg I withdraw my nomination I think you're right. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 22:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

    Bittium glareosum, shell[edit]

       
    Bittium glareosum 01.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Llez (talk) on 2014-09-04 05:42 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Bittium glareosum, Shell

    Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope --LivioAndronico talk 08:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
    promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)    [reply]
    Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 22:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    Bittium glareosum 02.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Llez (talk) on 2022-06-05 07:47 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Bittium glareosum, shell
    Reason:
    This is a much better preserved specimen --Llez (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC) -- Llez (talk)[reply]
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support More details. But do the differences in color reflect differences in subspecies? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pictogram voting info.svg Info There are no accepted subspecies (see [1]) --Llez (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support per nom. --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question I don't understand the colour difference. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pictogram voting info.svg Info There are many species with variable colour and/or pattern, see for example here, here, here, here, here (in the latter example not only the same species but the same population, collected in an area of a few square meters), and many more. --Llez (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 22:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

    Porta Nigra[edit]

       
    Trier Porta Nigra BW 1.JPG
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Berthold Werner (talk) on 2022-06-15 02:40 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Porta Nigra
    Used in:
    de:Porta Nigra, en:Porta Nigra, fr:Porta Nigra ...
    • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Is there any reason why this image is more valuable for illustrating the subject than, say, Image:Trier, Porta Nigra cityside.jpg? I'm not trying to be facetious--I'm simply wondering if there's a particular reason why an image of the north side is more valuable than one of the south. --jonny-mt 13:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • First of all I didn't think to select a own valued image for each side. Perhaps you're right. But the north side is the side the romans build to impress the Germanic tribes so it's a kind of "main side" and more impressing. Most pictures in books and postcards show the north side. But as a "UNESCO World Heritage Site" the Porta Nigra may got a valued image for each side. --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have you considered doing a series, then? I like this shot and agree that it's valuable, but since I'm having a hard time gauging its value relative to other similar pictures on Commons I'm Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral for the time being. I'd certainly be willing to support a series showing various angles of this World Heritage Site, though. --jonny-mt 15:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support I agree with the nominator that this side of the structure is the most relevant, and I find the scope relevant as a stand-alone image. There are other photos on Commons taken from this side, but I think the lightning conditions on this candidate is better than on competing images and the crop is good. Other criteria check out for me too, so its a support from my side. Concerning a set nomination, I have my reservations unless it is taken as a series on the same day, at the same distance, such that it constitutes a coherent set. Difficult however, as the lightning conditions will never be good at all sides at the same time of day. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Result: 1 support, 1 neutral
=> Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per comments on the other photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 22:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    Porta Nigra morgens.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Wolf im Wald on 2022-06-15 02:40 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Porta Nigra
    Reason:
    good perspective and very high sharpness IMO -- Wolf im Wald

    Symbol support vote.svg super! --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
    Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose There is already an existing VI for this scope of the Porta Nigra. This nomination should be withdrawn and re-nominated in MVR if the nominator wishes to contest the existing VI. --GRDN711 (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting info.svg Info Restarted the nomination because of existing VI. Please vote below. -- Wolf im Wald 02:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Symbol support vote.svg Support I prefer this one, because there are no cars in the foreground. --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support Agree with Palauenc05. Without cars in the foreground makes this image more valuable. --GRDN711 (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support It also lacks competition from the clouds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support IMHO an exemplary hi-res image, certainly a VI. Congrats: 44 images ... and, as yet, I haven't detected a single stitching error, even in the multitude of leaves at right. Which software do you use? Tremendous detail - every single chisel mark visible. Quite often hi-res images with low contrast do not readily appeal to the eye when rendered at lo-res, say a few hundred pixels each edge, but this image sports enough colour and contrast to please at any resolution. -- Franz van Duns (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 22:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

    Römer[edit]

       
    Frankfurter Römer.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Der Wolf im Wald (talk) on 2022-06-15 02:50 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Römer (Frankfurt am Main)
    Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
    promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 12:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)    [reply]
    • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose as not the whole of the building per the other nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 22:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
    Frankfurter Römer 2019.jpg
    Review Page (edit)
    Nominated by:
    Wolf im Wald on 2022-06-15 02:50 (UTC)
    Scope:
    Römer (Frankfurt am Main)
    Reason:
    good perspective, nice light and good overall quality IMO -- Wolf im Wald
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support. This image is valuable and useful too for me. But I like your other image of the Römer with front view still better. Perhaps you should spezify the scope. -- Spurzem (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Hallo Lothar, ich antworte dir mal auf Deutsch. Das Problem ist, dass auch die beiden nicht rötlichen Gebäudeteile rechts im Bild zum Römer gehören. Das wusste ich damals nicht, als ich das alte Bild geschossen habe. Daher denke ich, dass das neue Bild anschaulicher ist und das alte sollte seine VI-Auszeichnung verlieren. Am Scope sollte daher wohl nichts verändert werden. Grüße und danke für dein Pro! :-) -- Wolf im Wald 19:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Restarted the nomination because of existing VI. Please vote below. -- Wolf im Wald 02:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ich verstehe den Sinn des Manövers nicht. Mir gefallen beide Bilder gut, und da sie aus unterschiedlichen Blickwinkeln aufgenommen sind, könnten beide ausgezeichnet werden. Aber mir ist es egal; ich verstehe sowieso nicht, nach welchen Kriterien hier bewertet wird, zumal es von heute auf morgen anders sein kann. Viele Grüße -- Spurzem (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ich finde das andere Bild bietet keinen Mehrwert und da es ohnehin technisch veraltet und fotografisch schlechter ist, braucht es auch keine Auszeichnung. Grüße -- Wolf im Wald 01:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pictogram voting info.svg Info The building is not fully represented in the old photo because it consists of 5 parts and the two on the right, which look slightly different in color, are cut off. In addition, the old picture does not show very well that the building facade has a bend on the left side between the first and the 2nd part of building near the blue EU flag (see [2]). -- Wolf im Wald 01:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support per "Info" above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 22:03, 4 July 2022 (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[edit]

    Warning This section has been deactivated because of technical issues. Please do not add any VI set candidate.
    Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Valued_image_candidates&oldid=577180965"