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 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

44,202 closed valued image candidates
Closed as				Nominations
Promoted			39,530 (89.4%)
Undecided			2,368 (5.4%)
Declined			2,304 (5.2%)

New valued image nominations

Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Zinnmann (talk) on 2021-07-01 20:33 (UTC) Scope: Pleurotus djamor  Comment this one Pleurotus djamor crop.jpg is better. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC) May I ask why? The cropped image has a lower resolution, is less sharp and has a distracting background. --Zinnmann (talk) 08:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)  Comment We are not in IQ, what counts here is the scientific value of this image, which is otherwise very beautiful, but which only shows the lower part of a group of juveniles. The other image is more complete for a mature group and therefore has more value. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2021-07-02 15:12 (UTC) Scope: Le Décours, à Nivelle Used in: Wikidata: Q3042898  Comment (1) Could you explain how this short stretch represents the entire river? Perhaps a narrower scope is required? (2) This image showing a longer stretch with more of the surroundings appears to be better. (3) Appears to be a CCW tilt. --Tagooty (talk) 04:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC) @Tagooty: Thanks for your advice. I specified a narrower scope. I also downloaded This image with more environment, correcting the tilt.- Best regards.--Pierre André (talk) 10:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC) I see the narrower scope, but I don't see a new version of the image. Only the one version uploaded 15:49, 2 July 2021 --Tagooty (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC) I've download it under the scope Le Décours au Hameau d'Elpret, Marchiennes. Best regards, --Pierre André (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
View promotion Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-07-03 04:48 (UTC) Scope: Cornus sanguinea (Common dogwood) - Leaves and inflorescence  Support Useful & used.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:42, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 06:28 or 18:28 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-07-03 04:51 (UTC) Scope: Etude d'après le plâtre (Study from plaster) by Toulouse-Lautrec in Musée Toulouse-Lautrec Albi  Support best in scope.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 06:28 or 18:28 (UTC)
View promotion Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-07-03 04:54 (UTC) Scope: Université Toulouse 1 Capitole - Main entrance, Arsenal site  Support The only in scope, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 17:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 06:28 or 18:28 (UTC)	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2021-07-03 09:53 (UTC) Scope: Le Décours, Marchiennes Used in: Marchiennes Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2021-07-03 11:33 (UTC) Scope: Hansa 1700 Sport from 1935 in motion  Comment It looks like there is an already promoted image for this car. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC) @Archaeodontosaurus: Where should it be? Have we another image of this car in motion? -- Spurzem (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Do we have usually have scopes for in motion (naturally we do for racing etc.)? In this case, what is the difference between stationary and in motion? Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC) @Charlesjsharp: Stand in the middle of a street and you will feel the difference between a moving and a stationary car. Or try to photograph a moving car and you will also learn the difference. Finally, check out a photo of a moving racing car and a racing car in the museum. I know: the old Hansa 1700 slowly driving along a city street is not too different from the one standing in the meadow. Could I help you; do you understand? -- Spurzem (talk) 08:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Please re-read my question. I said racing cars are different. Charlesjsharp (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Please read the first sentence of my answer and try out what I say; then you will feel the difference between stationary and in motion. -- Spurzem (talk) 09:09, 5 July 2021 (UTC)  Support "... in motion" sounds OK to me. --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:51, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 04:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-07-03 19:35 (UTC) Scope: Church of St James the Great, Haydock Used in: Wikidata:Q5117433, Church of St James the Great, Haydock Reason: Tricky given the options, but I've minimised the obstruction by trees, I hope, and shown most of the "front" of the church, which you can see from other images is under construction right now. Much more to the left and it would have been completely obstructed by the bushes at the front entrance. -- Rodhullandemu (talk)  Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 04:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-07-03 15:51 (UTC) Scope: Haydock Colliery memorial at St James Church Haydock - full view Used in: Wikidata:Q107406515, Haydock Colliery  Support. Useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 04:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-07-03 16:51 (UTC) Scope: Richard Evans & Co, Ltd - datestone Used in: Wikidata:Q107392660 Reason: Haydock Collieries themselves (run by this company), and their buildings, closed by 1971 at the latest so there is little to remember the company by. This rescued datestone is all that survives on the site of their colliery offices, now occupied by a supermarket. -- Rodhullandemu (talk)  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 04:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2021-07-04 04:40 (UTC) Scope: Flower of a Papaver atlanticum.  Comment It is a very beautiful image of an unknown flower. It is not the most common species. You need the full name for VI. Otherwise this image would serve as a reference for all poppy species and there are many ... It seems to be Papaver Atlanticum. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2021 (UTC)  Done. Correction. Thanks for your reviews.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 06:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC)  Support Ok now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-07-04 04:51 (UTC) Scope: Ceratomia catalpae specimen - Female dorsal  Support Best in scope --Llez (talk) 05:46, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-07-04 04:54 (UTC) Scope: Esquisse allégorique - Dauphin (Allegorical sketch - Dolphin) by Toulouse-Lautrec in Musée Toulouse-Lautrec Albi  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-07-04 04:56 (UTC) Scope: Rue Cartailhac, in Toulouse - Seen from the Saint Raymond Museum.  Support Useful & used.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2021-07-04 05:41 (UTC) Scope: Cardiocardita partschi, left valve  Support best in scope.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rocky Masum (talk) on 2021-07-04 06:46 (UTC) Scope: First ever steam locomotive of Bangladesh  Support Best in scope and used in bn, de, en Wikis. I suggest that the word "engine" be replaced by "locomotive" be used as that is the word in the Category. --Tagooty (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Thanks for change of word in scope. --Tagooty (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2021-07-04 14:31 (UTC) Scope: Grand Palais, photomechanical print, Exposition Universal, 1900. Library of Congress (anonymous).  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Александр Байдуков (talk) on 2021-07-04 13:25 (UTC) Scope: Staroladozhsky natural monument - Volkhov River in Staraya Ladoga Used in: Staraya Ladoga, Volkhov (river) Reason: Panoramic view of the Volkhov River and the village of Staraya Ladogas on the eastern shore, covering all the main historical sights of the Natural Monument "Staroladozhsky" -- Александр Байдуков (talk)  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: A1Cafel (talk) on 2021-07-04 16:02 (UTC) Scope: Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, portrait photography needs more specific scope. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)  Question More specific how? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)  Comment OK, I've looked through photos in scope. In this case, we're talking about a royal consort who lived 100 years. I think we can justify having 1 VI per decade. Otherwise, it's just way too hard to pick between portraits of him as toddler, teenager, naval officer, ~60-year-old, how he looked a few years ago, etc. Your nomination is damn good, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:23, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2021-07-04 17:15 (UTC) Scope: Goliath Jagdwagen Typ 34, built in 1959, front and right side Used in: de: Goliath (Automobilhersteller), de: Liste von Radfahrzeugen der Bundeswehr, de: Goliath Jagdwagen Typ 34, en: List of sport utility vehicles, he: גוליית יאגד-ואגן סוג 34, it: Utente:Bundesadler/Lista dei veicoli della Bundeswehr, it: Veicoli su ruote della Bundeswehr, sv: Goliath, uk: Borgward  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:31, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-07-04 18:29 (UTC) Scope: St Helens Cenotaph - Merseyside Used in: Wikidata:Q107415596  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-07-04 18:04 (UTC) Scope: K6 telephone kiosks at St Helens Town Hall - context Used in: Wikidata:Q26339837  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:34, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-07-04 16:58 (UTC) Scope: Hippodrome Theatre, St Helens Used in: Wikidata:Q31679754  Best in Scope and a nice building. If you know or find out when it was built, add that info to the file description. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Added 1st June 1903. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:53, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-07-04 19:48 (UTC) Scope: Queen Victoria statue, St Helens Used in: Wikidata:Q15979535  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:33, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rocky Masum (talk) on 2021-07-05 03:55 (UTC) Scope: Portrait photography of Huseyn Shaheed Suhrawardy  Best in Scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2021-07-05 04:33 (UTC) Scope: Iniforis albogranosa, shell  Support Useful and quite a beautiful shell. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-07-05 05:21 (UTC) Scope: Filipendula vulgaris (Dropwort) - Habit  Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-07-05 05:22 (UTC) Scope: Etude d'homme - MTL.89 (Study of a man) by Toulouse-Lautrec in Musée Toulouse-Lautrec Albi  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:32, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-07-05 05:23 (UTC) Scope: Square Emile Cartailhac in Toulouse.  Support Useful. I'd use "Place" in the scope, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)  Comment The official name is: garden ; but it doesn't look like it. The term place designates a large open space and in the district it was given the name of square because it is a space enclosed by gates, it is its usual name. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC) OK, an unusual case. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2021-07-05 09:30 (UTC) Scope: Château Perrier in Épernay (France)  Best in Scope and useful -- Spurzem (talk) 10:12, 5 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2021-07-05 17:17 (UTC) Scope: Havenkantoor Stavoren (View of the Port Office)  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Александр Байдуков (talk) on 2021-07-05 19:46 (UTC) Scope: Staroladozhsky natural monument – Banks of the Volkhov River in the village of Staraya Ladoga, view downstream Used in: Volkhov (river) Reason: High-resolution panorama of the eastern and western banks of the Volkhov River in the village of Staraya Ladoga, view downstream -- Александр Байдуков (talk)  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:22, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2021-07-05 20:56 (UTC) Scope: Equestrian statue in front of Perrier castle, Épernay (France)  Support Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Tagooty (talk) on 2021-07-04 15:41 (UTC) Scope: Mud village, Spiti, Himachal Used in: (1) en:Mud village, Spiti (2) wikidata:Q107409992  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-07-06 05:09 (UTC) Scope: Dolba hyloeus specimen - male dorsal  Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-07-06 05:10 (UTC) Scope: Allégorie - Le printemps de la vie (Allegory - The spring of life) by Toulouse-Lautrec in Musée Toulouse-Lautrec Albi  Support best in scope.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2021-07-06 05:21 (UTC) Scope: Monophorus perversus, shell  Support Useful & used.--Famberhorst (talk) 05:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Famberhorst (talk) on 2021-07-06 05:45 (UTC) Scope: Allium canadense (Meadow Garlic) inflorescence - closed flowers  Support Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: — Rhododendrites talk |  on 2021-07-06 16:45 (UTC) Scope: Gipsy (dog), grave  Support The poem is nice, but what makes it really notable is that it's by the founder of the ASPCA. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: — Rhododendrites talk |  on 2021-07-06 16:48 (UTC) Scope: Lemuel Wilmarth, grave  Support Useful. One of the founders of the Art Students League of New York. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-07-06 12:48 (UTC) Scope: Haydock High School - Memorial Library Used in: Wikidata:Q107430432  Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-07-06 17:27 (UTC) Scope: Grade II listed buildings in the Metropolitan Borough of St Helens - Pear Tree Farmhouse, Haydock Used in: Wikidata:Q26627066  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-07-06 19:19 (UTC) Scope: St Mark's Church, Blackbrook from the northwest Used in: Wikidata:Q107435402 Reason: Best overall impression of the building? -- Rodhullandemu (talk)  Comment It would be good to put the view orientation. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)  Done Rodhullandemu (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-07-06 19:36 (UTC) Scope: Haydock War Memorial Used in: Wikidata:Q107435402  Support Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:07, 8 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Александр Байдуков (talk) on 2021-07-06 20:25 (UTC) Scope: Larix sibirica (Siberian larch) - Crowns of Siberian larch in winter Used in: Larix sibirica Reason: Winter crowns of old Siberian Larch trees (Larix sibirica) on the territory of the UNESCO World Heritage Site Lindulovskaya Grove -- Александр Байдуков (talk) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2021-07-06 21:14 (UTC) Scope: Sous-préfecture de Reims, France.  Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2021-07-07 04:46 (UTC) Scope: Work shed on the Boshuisweg.  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-07-07 05:09 (UTC) Scope: Fumaria officinalis (Drug fumitory) - Inflorescence  Support Very good image, useful and often used -- Spurzem (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-07-07 05:11 (UTC) Scope: La leçon de chant (The singing lesson) by Toulouse-Lautrec in Musée Toulouse-Lautrec Albi  Support best in scope.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Carsten Steger (talk) on 2021-07-07 10:17 (UTC) Scope: Ludwigsburg Palace (aerial view)  Support Useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: FredD (talk) on 2021-07-07 10:16 (UTC) Scope: Posidonia oceanica, seagrass Reason: Best in scope (and only picture with a good color balance). -- FredD (talk) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2021-07-07 15:03 (UTC) Scope: Dashboard and steering wheel of Goliath Jagdwagen Typ 34, view from left Used in: de: Goliath Jagdwagen Typ 34  Support Useful & used.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2021-07-07 15:07 (UTC) Scope: Peugeot 403 Break, front and right side  Support Useful.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2021-07-07 15:15 (UTC) Scope: Jaguar XK8 Coupé, front view  Comment The car is distorted in an unrealistic way. Some may find the picture interesting, but in my opinion it is unsuitable for an encyclopedia. Please discuss. -- Spurzem (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)  Oppose Too much distortion of the subject --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2021-07-07 15:53 (UTC) Scope: Triumph TR3A, front view Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Famberhorst (talk) on 2021-07-07 15:31 (UTC) Scope: Koningskuil in the Kroondomein.  Support Beautiful and useful image, very good -- Spurzem (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2021-07-07 21:00 (UTC) Scope: Chevrolet Kodiak (2003–2009) pickups, front and right side Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2021-07-08 04:33 (UTC) Scope: View of the harbor homes on the Havenweg (Stavoren) Open for review.

Pending Most valued review candidates

Scope: Cour d'appel de Colmar

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Gzen92 [discuter] on 2017-11-07 18:32 (UTC) Scope: Cour d'appel de Colmar Reason: National heritage site. -- Gzen92 [discuter]  Comment Perspective correction necessary. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)  New version Gzen92 [discuter] 11:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)  Oppose In favour of the newer version Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 04:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Gzen92 [discuter] on 2021-06-17 08:45 (UTC) Scope: Cour d'appel de Colmar  Support Not a sunny as the other one but building isn't cropped as tightly. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 04:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Scope: Bistorta officinalis

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Uoaei1 (talk) on 2014-10-19 07:59 (UTC) Scope: Bistorta officinalis (European bistort), florescence Used in: de:Schlangen-Knöterich  Comment The scope is not properly formatted. The binomial name should be in italics followed by the English vernacular name in parenthesis.. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)  Done Scope changed accordingly, thanks for your advice --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC) The scope is perfect. But the caption is poor. In addition to geocoding must put the locality. A good caption ensures better distribution of the image. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)  Done Caption enhanced with locality information --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)  Support Geat --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)  Oppose Not as sharp, less detail. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 04:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Famberhorst (talk) on 2021-06-23 17:08 (UTC) Scope: Bistorta officinalis Inflorescence.  Support. Excellent, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)  Oppose Unfortunately there is already an image promoted in VI for this topic. You have to go through Pending Most valued review candidates . Personally if you choose this path I will vote in favor because your image is much better.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)  Question Do I have to perform certain actions? Am I hurting someone else with that?--Famberhorst (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC) A competition should not hurt anyone. You have to format your request and place it in the competition. You have a tutorial for that. It's not complicated ... but it's a bit long. Do it: it is an experience to be done.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)  Question I hardly dare to ask, but where can I find such a tutorial?--Famberhorst (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)  Support Best in scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)  Support Sharper, more detail. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)  Comment Actuall I prefer the other one, but not enough to vote this FP down. The dark background ruins it for me; surprised it got unanimous support with all the chromatic noise. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 04:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Scope: David Cameron, portrait photography

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: A1Cafel (talk) on 2021-06-22 03:08 (UTC) Scope: David Cameron, portrait photography Used in: David Cameron  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)  Question Is the year relevant? How do we recognize the difference in appearance between his being photographed in 2010 and 2011? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)  Oppose for scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)  Comment Scope changed, year removed. --A1Cafel (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)  Comment I have a feeling of deja vu. I spent a long time looking through all the photos of Cameron for a previous nomination. What happened then? You didn't change the scope to being just a portrait of him and it failed? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)  Comment OK, so this series, derived from a standing portrait, is one of the best of the former PM, but I feel like File:David Cameron portrait (cropped).jpg (or one of the other versions derived from File:David Cameron portrait 2013.jpg) is best in scope. It's more evenly lit and more flattering. Please make an argument for why I'm wrong. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC) @Ikan Kekek: I will make a Most Valued Review within this scope--A1Cafel (talk) 03:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)  Comment OK, cool. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC)  Oppose Unevenly lit, less flattering. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC) @Ikan Kekek: Duplicate vote. --A1Cafel (talk) 02:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC) Aren't the votes in a Most Valuable Review all supposed to be new? There was something wrong with the procedure, I think? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC) Indeed only the positive votes made since the new appointment count. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:08, 28 June 2021 (UTC) What about the negative votes? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2021 (UTC) At the moment there is no vote for the left image and one vote for the right image. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 04:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: A1Cafel (talk) on 2021-06-25 03:32 (UTC) Scope: David Cameron, portrait photography  Support More evenly lit, more flattering. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 04:36, 6 July 2021 (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.