Commons:Valued image candidates

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut
COM:VIC
This project page in other languages:

English | فارسی | français | polski | русский | +/−

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.

Skip to current candidates Valued Image links:

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. 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.

Each candidate should have its status parameter 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 <!!--or image set--> 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. -- ~~~~
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info My information. -- Example
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. -- ~~~~
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question My question. -- Example
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
17,541 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
15,117 (86.2%) 
Undecided
  
959 (5.5%) 
Declined
  
1,465 (8.4%) 


New valued image nominations[edit]

   
2015 Nowa Bystrzyca, kościół fil. pw. Wniebowzięcia NMP 08.JPG
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-08-28 20:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of the Assumption in Nowa Bystrzyca, old gravestones at the church

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why is the text on the gravestones in a Polish churchyard written in German? (I know the reason, but does everybody else?) If the reason is stated in both the image description and the VI reason, it will enhance the value of this image, otherwise one could argue that the scope of this image is too narrow. Martinvl (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Photo description should be described, not a history lesson of photographed object. In my opinion the description of this image is sufficient. I don't see the connection between the description of the photo and the width of the scope --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
A description such as "German language gravestones at the Church of the Assumption in Nowa Bystrzyca (Neuweistritz before 1945), Lower Silesia" would convey a lot more information without adding unduly to the text. It would also give an opportunity to link the image to Category:German cemeteries in Lower Silesian Voivodeship. Martinvl (talk) 21:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
This isn't a cemetery, but only plaques from the graves embedded in the wall. Tombs for a long time don't exist. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Open for review.
St. Martin Grimmelshofen - Sanctuary.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2015-08-29 05:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Church St. Martin, Stühlingen-Grimmelshofen, sanctuary

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think only the altar is remarkable here and deserves a scope. As we have an excellent candidate for it, I think it is enough.--Jebulon (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes, we have already the altar. But here we see it in the context, which is, in my opinion, very interesting. Normally one would expect an baroque interior, but here we have a baroque altar in a very modern surrounding (even if the church is old). It shows also the interior of the church, which is very small, the photo was taken from the organ loft. --Llez (talk) 06:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 08:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Open for review.
Junonia iphita 03414.JPG
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Vengolis (talk) on 2015-08-29 16:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Junonia iphita (chocolate pansy), dorsal view

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This one : file:Chocolate pansy - Junonia iphita - SCVA.jpg shows better color. But none of the two images have a caption. The caption is essential. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Dwór Dolny w Starej Łomnicy 03.JPG
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-08-29 20:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Lower Manor in Stara Łomnica, balcony and portal
Open for review.
Panorama of San Francisco by Eadweard Muybridge, 1878.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Scewing (talk) on 2015-08-30 00:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Panorama of San Francisco by Eadweard Muybridge, 1878
Used in:
History of San Francisco
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Must connect the scope to the category that contains the image --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Fixed! -- Scewing (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful. looks at the scope syntax --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
2015 Dwór Środkowy w Starej Łomnicy 04.JPG
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-08-30 17:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Middle Manor in Stara Łomnica, coats of arms of Habsburg and Pannwitz families

Please provide a better description, this CoA should be identified, as they can be identified. Thanks.--Jebulon (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

✓ Done --Jacek Halicki (talk) 07:53, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Open for review.
2015 Kościół św. Anny w Zalesiu 02.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-08-30 18:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint Anne church in Zalesie, exposure from W

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:02, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
2015 Kościół św. Anny w Zalesiu 03.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-08-30 18:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint Anne church in Zalesie, belfry

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Finhan - L'église Saint-Martin.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2015-08-31 05:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Finhan The Church of St. Martin - Northwest exposure

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 07:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Église Saint-Jérôme de Toulouse - chapelle de Saint-Joseph.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2015-08-31 05:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Church Saint-Jérôme from Toulouse, Chapel of St. Joseph.

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 07:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Ponte Santi o De Mezzo (Venice).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2015-08-31 05:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Ponte Santi on Rio della Fornace in Venice - South exposure

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 07:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Hassfurt St. Kilian BW 1.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Berthold Werner (talk) on 2015-08-31 07:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Pfarrkirche St. Kilian (Haßfurt), view from southwest

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 07:58, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Border met Helenium 'Wyndley' en Stachys monieri. Locatie, Tuinreservaat Jonker vallei.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2015-08-31 08:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Helenium 'Wyndley' Flowers.
Open for review.
Nassarius incrassatus 01.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2015-08-31 17:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Nassarius incrassatus (Thick Lipped Dog Whelk), Shell

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Centaurea scabiosa 02.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2015-08-31 17:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Centaurea scabiosa (Greater Knapweed), Inflorescence

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Weltzeituhr mit Fernsehturm - Alexanderplatz.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Dr. Chriss (talk) on 2015-08-31 19:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Urania-Weltzeituhr and Berliner Fernsehturm.

Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Brouilla portal kapitell(li).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2015-08-31 20:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Portal of Église Sainte-Marie de Brouilla: left capital
Used in:
de:Sainte-Marie (Brouilla)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Should we have the right capital (of the entrance) as another candidate soon ? Yes, this one is the best of the two we have, but I don't think this object is worth a scope.--Jebulon (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Other opinions please. --Palauenc05 (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The porch is part of the description of the classification of historic monuments. The two capitals are not identical. The one and the other merit a label. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I disagree. The project loses his credibility.--Jebulon (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Formerly we hat sets for such pictures, but this isn't possible any more (which I regret). So we must relinquish coherent images or use subscopes as here (which is also a kind of set: The main scope is the church, the subscope the left capital, the right capital an so on as part of the set). I see it as a replacement of the VIS. The same we have with plants: formerly we had sets with habitus, leaves, flowers, fruits, seeds, now each picture must be nominated separately as VI, what a pity, as a single picture does not show all aspects of the plant. --Llez (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I disagree with the comparison. Comparison is not reason.--Jebulon (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
      • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Whether an object deserves a scope or not should also depend on the object’s value itself. These capitals represent an important kind of medieval craftsmanship. They are almost always unique specimens of high quality. I could have chosen the category Romanesque capitals in Pyrénées-Orientales for the scope but decided to use Église Sainte-Marie de Brouilla as the picture contributes to a nice series. As Llez correctly complains, it’s a pity that the former VI set nominations don’t work anymore. --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for comment. I still disagree. I'm from a country (region) where one can find tons of such romanesque capitals, and I have a lot of such pictures to be uploaded soon (WLM?). I don't think every of them deserves a "scope" (which notion has nothing to do with categories nor galleries). A picture of the whole portal could be acceptable though, and you should nominate it (if not, the current candidacy is definitely a nonsense IMO). And yes, a set with the two capitals and the portal would be nice...--Jebulon (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Open for review.
2015 Kościół św. Jana Chrzciciela w Wyszkach 01.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-08-31 21:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint John the Baptist church in Wyszki, exposure from SSE

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Kościół św. Jana Chrzciciela w Wyszkach 02.JPG
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-08-31 21:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint John the Baptist church in Wyszki, exposure from NW

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment it would be useful that this image is used. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

On polish wikipedia there is no side with this church, how I will create them then then I will add this photograph. --Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Open for review.
2015 Kościół św. Jana Chrzciciela w Wyszkach 04.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-08-31 21:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint John the Baptist church in Wyszki, belfry

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Llez (talk) 15:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Kościół św. Józefa w Ponikwie 01.JPG
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-08-31 21:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint Joseph church in Ponikwa, exposure from WSW

I don't think it is different enough from SSE exposure, please chose one, we don't need the two as VI.--Jebulon (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Kościół św. Józefa w Ponikwie 02.JPG
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-08-31 21:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint Joseph church in Ponikwa, exposure from SSE

I don't think it is different enough from WSW exposure, please chose one, we don't need the two as VI.--Jebulon (talk) 00:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Kościół św. Józefa w Ponikwie 05.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-08-31 21:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint Joseph church in Ponikwa, exposure from N

Symbol support vote.svg Support it would be useful that this image is used. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

On polish wikipedia there is no side with this church, how I will create them then then I will add this photograph.--Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Open for review.
Ortaffa vue generale2.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2015-08-31 21:54 (UTC)
Scope:
General view of Ortaffa, France
Used in:
fr:Ortaffa

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Campsas - Eglise Saint-Blaise.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2015-09-01 05:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Campsas, St. Blaise church, on village square.

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Ponte de San Vio (Venice).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2015-09-01 05:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Ponte de San Vio on Rio de San Vio in Venice - South exposure

Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
La Vergine in gloria e santi - Palma il Giovane (1624-1628).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2015-09-01 05:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Cappella Contarini San Francesco della Vigna (Venice). "The Madonna in Glory with Saints" by Palma the Younger

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 09:00, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Coal Run looking downstream.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
--Jakob (talk) on 2015-09-01 12:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Coal Run (Shamokin Creek)
Used in:
w:Coal Run (Shamokin Creek)
Reason:
Currently the best image of Coal Run that is available on Commons, show the effects that acid mine drainage has on it. -- --Jakob (talk)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Must connect the scope to the category that contains the image --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm unsure what you mean. Does there have to be a Commons category for Coal Run? Isn't an article sufficient? (This is my first VI nomination, hence the confusion). --Jakob (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
      • @Jakec: Theroretically, linking the scope to an article on any Wikipedia language version would be sufficient (see instructions). However, in practice Commons categories are preferred because they are our main tool for organizing content and using them in the scope provides reviewers with quick access to all potential counter-candidates. Hence, I've created Category:Coal Run (Shamokin Creek), moved all relevant files I could find over there and linked the category in the scope. @Archaeodontosaurus: hope you are OK with that? --El Grafo (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
        • Ah, thanks. I'll keep that in mind with future nominations. --Jakob (talk) 21:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --El Grafo (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Absolutely! and especially welcome in VI Smile}--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC)...
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Open for review.
Chrysanthemum weyrichii 03.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2015-09-01 18:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Chrysanthemum weyrichii (Dwarf Chrysanthemum), Inflorescence

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Kościół św. Józefa w Ponikwie 08.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-09-01 20:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint Joseph church in Ponikwa, main entrance

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Kościół św. Józefa w Ponikwie 04.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-09-01 21:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint Joseph church in Ponikwa, crucifix at the church
Used in:
pl:Korzeń

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not original enough for a scope IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 05:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Kościół św. Józefa w Ponikwie 10.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-09-01 21:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint Joseph church in Ponikwa, cemetery chapel

Symbol support vote.svg Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Kościół św. Marii Magdaleny w Wójtowicach 01.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-09-01 21:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Mary Magdalene church in Wójtowice, exposure from SW

Symbol support vote.svg Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Kościół św. Marii Magdaleny w Wójtowicach 04.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-09-01 21:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Mary Magdalene church in Wójtowice, exposure from E

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Kościół św. Marii Magdaleny w Wójtowicach 07.JPG
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-09-01 21:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Mary Magdalene church in Wójtowice, main entrance
Open for review.
Eueides isabella isabella MHNT dos.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2015-09-02 05:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Eueides isabella (Isabella's Longwing) mounted specimen, dorsal side

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 12:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Rue de la Fonderie (Toulouse).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2015-09-02 05:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Rue de la Fonderie in Toulouse - View of the entire street southern exposure.

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Accademia bridge in Venice (South East exposure).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2015-09-02 05:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Ponte dell'Accademia on Grand Canal in Venice - South East exposure

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Kandyan dancer orchid (Oncidium sphacelatum).JPG
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
AntanO on 2015-09-02 07:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Oncidium sphacelatum flower


Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Done. --AntanO 04:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Two years ago this issue was raised and we had chosen to focus on the links to the gallery. To promote their development. Many have become giant category, and of course unorganized. This image is the best we have for this scope but there are too many gray areas so that we can make a reference. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have missed that discussion. I think galleries are pretty much dead. Nobody really uses them because maintaining them requires too much work. I seriously doubt trying to promote them through VI will change that. But this is not the right place to discuss that, and I don't really care, so if you want to go ahead and change the scope back to the gallery I'm fine with that. I fear I don't really understand your last sentence: Is that an "oppose"? --El Grafo (talk) 08:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes my feeling for this appointment is not favorable. But I hi the work that has been done and the approach. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
Open for review.
Ljubljana BW 2014-10-09 11-34-41.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Berthold Werner (talk) on 2015-09-02 11:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Town Hall Ljubljana, facade

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Rohloff-speedhub-500-14-by-RalfR-05.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
El Grafo (talk) on 2015-09-02 12:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Rohloff Speedhub 500/14, cutaway
Used in:
Reason:
There are several different versions of this file, but I think this one is the best. There is also File:Speedhub-schnitt.jpg, but it's not significantly better than this one and I don't feel comfortable nominating a third-party file without OTRS-permission (even though it falls under COM:GOF). There is also the excellent and already featured File:Speed1c.png, but I think that one would be better off with a separate sub-scope for cutaway drawings -- El Grafo (talk)

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Excelsior (ship, 1999), Sète 01.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
--Christian Ferrer (talk) on 2015-09-02 12:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Excelsior (ship, 1999). Side view

Pictogram voting question-blue.svg Request criterion 5 requires geocoding: any chance you can reconstruct the camera position? --El Grafo (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Alvania lactea 01.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2015-09-02 15:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Alvania lactea, Shell

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Cirsium eriophorum 01.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2015-09-02 15:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Cirsium eriophorum (Woolly thistle), Habitus

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 15:18, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Kościół św. Mikołaja w Starkowie 03.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-09-02 19:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint Nicholas church in Starków, exposure from S

VI 4 me --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Nowa Bystrzyca, kościół Wniebowzięcia NMP 03.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-09-02 19:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Interior of church of the Assumption in Nowa Bystrzyca, matroneum

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Nowa Bystrzyca, kościół Wniebowzięcia NMP 04.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-09-02 19:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Interior of church of the Assumption in Nowa Bystrzyca, pulpit

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Palauenc05 (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Nowa Bystrzyca, kościół Wniebowzięcia NMP 05.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-09-02 19:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Interior of church of the Assumption in Nowa Bystrzyca, baptismal font

Symbol support vote.svg Support useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Nowa Bystrzyca, kościół Wniebowzięcia NMP 06.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-09-02 19:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Interior of church of the Assumption in Nowa Bystrzyca, pipe organ

Symbol support vote.svg Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
2015 Kościół św. Marii Magdaleny w Wójtowicach 08.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jacek Halicki (talk) on 2015-09-02 20:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Mary Magdalene church in Wójtowice, belfry

Symbol support vote.svg Support best in scope --Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Aerial photo of Mercer Island, Washington.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jebulon (talk) on 2015-09-03 05:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Mercer Island, aerial photograph.
Used in:
Mercer Island, Washington
Reason:
Alone in scope, nice and complete view, good quality enough, depicts the subject well.In use. I don't know if a geocode is necessary or have any sense for an aerial view, but the coordinates of this island are in the relevant article anyway. By Dllu. -- Jebulon (talk)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I've added {{Object location}} with the coordinates from the article. In my experience, exact camera coordinates for aerial images like this are very difficult to to determine afterwards. Also added a rough viewing direction in the description. That should be enough to fulfill the geocoding requirement in this case. --El Grafo (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Open for review.
Hôtel de Chalvet Toulouse Façade.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2015-09-03 05:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Hotel Chalvet in Toulouse; the facade Parliament Square

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 07:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Palazzo Loredan Cini (Venice).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2015-09-03 05:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Palace Loredan Cini in Venice - Facade on Rio di san Vio

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Sacrificio di Isacco (Le sacrifice d’Isaac) par Giambattista Pittoni.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2015-09-03 05:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Cappella Badoer-Surian of San Francesco della Vigna (Venice). "The sacrifice of Isaac" by Giambattista Pittoni

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Αγία Παρασκευή Χαλκίδα 2617.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
C messier (talk) on 2015-09-03 08:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Church of Agia Paraskevi, Chalkida, Greece - west facade

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Villelongue maria del vilar (convent).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2015-09-03 12:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Monastery Notre-Dame de Vilar, Villelongue-dels-Monts, France.
Used in:
en:Priory of Santa Maria del Vilar

Symbol support vote.svg Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Screenshot wikiwand.JPG
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
J. Lunau (talk) on 2015-09-03 13:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:WikiWand
Used in:
de:wikiwand, en:wikiwand, hu:wikiwand
Reason:
best in scope to show the look of wikiwand -- J. Lunau (talk)
Open for review.
Cirsium eriophorum 02.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2015-09-03 17:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Cirsium eriophorum (Woolly thistle), Inflorescences
Reason:
Shows a blossoming as well as a withering and a withered inflorescence -- Llez (talk)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Fronton - stalles de ancienne abbaye de Granselve PM31000230.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2015-09-04 05:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Fronton. Church "Notre Dame de l'Assomption", Choir stall from the former Grandselve Abbey.

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful photo (already embedded in wikipedia) of high quality. --J. Lunau (talk) 05:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
Palazzo Barbaro a San Vidal.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2015-09-04 05:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Palazzo Barbaro a San Vidal - Facade on Grand canal, in Venice

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Berthold Werner (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Open for review.
San Giovanni Battista battezza Cristo nel Giordano - di Battista Franco 1555.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2015-09-04 05:18 (UTC)
Scope:
San Francesco della Vigna (Venice). "The Baptism of Christ between St. Francis and Bernardine of Siena" by Battista Franco
Open for review.
Antoniuskirche, Frankfurt, Nave 20150820 1.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
DXR (talk) on 2015-09-04 10:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Antoniuskirche (Rödelheim), nave
Reason:
HQ, used -- DXR (talk)
Open for review.
Deutschordenskirche Frankfurt 20150820.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
DXR (talk) on 2015-09-04 10:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Deutschordenskirche (Frankfurt), nave
Reason:
Only interior in cat, used, HQ. -- DXR (talk)
Open for review.
Sigmaringen Schloss 2015-04-29 15-52-34.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Berthold Werner (talk) on 2015-09-04 11:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Sigmaringen castle, view from northwest
Open for review.


Pending Most valued review candidates[edit]

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache

All open candidates in an MVR has to be in the discussed state, 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.

Eva Joly[edit]

   
Eva Joly par Claude Truong-Ngoc juin 2013.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Yann (talk) on 2015-06-07 12:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Eva Joly
Used in:
Reason:
French-Norwegian politician of Green Party, member of European Parliament, candidate to presidential elections in 2012 -- Yann (talk)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose B&W cannot work if we have colour portraits, IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 08:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral B&W is not the best Denis Apel (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support B&W surely has its pros and cons. Regardless of that, I think it's still the best image within that scope. Also note that all but one Wikipedia articles on the subject use this one as their opening image. --El Grafo (talk) 09:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Eva Joly - Grenoble 2012.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Yann (talk) on 2015-06-07 12:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Eva Joly
Used in:
Reason:
French-Norwegian politician of Green Party, member of European Parliament, candidate to presidential elections in 2012 -- Yann (talk)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose blurry, and more ancient than the other.--Jebulon (talk) 11:14, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Port of Chittagong[edit]

   
Karnaphuli River at night (01).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Moheen Reeyad (talk) on 2015-08-23 21:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Port of Chittagong (East-west view)

Pictogram voting info.svg Scope changed from Karnaphuli River to Port of Chittagong (East-west view) --El Grafo (talk) 08:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Karnaphuli River at night (02).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Moheen Reeyad (talk) on 2015-08-23 21:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Port of Chittagong (East-west view)

Pictogram voting info.svg Scope changed from Karnaphuli River to Port of Chittagong (East-west view) --El Grafo (talk) 08:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Faculty of Science at University of Chittagong[edit]

   
Faculty of Science (Second) at University of Chittagong (10).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Moheen Reeyad (talk) on 2015-08-23 20:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Faculty of Science at University of Chittagong

There is already a VI within this skope --Hubertl 01:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

  • @Hubertl: I'm trying to put all of them in a MVR but I can't find the already existing VI in this scope? --El Grafo (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@El Grafo:: My fault, there is no VI in the scope, but there are a bunch of norminations with the same scope. --Hubertl 17:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks, just thought I'd missed something. Everything should now be at the MVR --El Grafo (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Faculty of Science (Second) at University of Chittagong (03).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Moheen Reeyad (talk) on 2015-08-23 21:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Faculty of Science at University of Chittagong

Useful --Hubertl 00:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Faculty of Science (Second) at University of Chittagong (04).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Moheen Reeyad (talk) on 2015-08-23 21:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Faculty of Science at University of Chittagong
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Faculty of Science (Second) at University of Chittagong (05).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Moheen Reeyad (talk) on 2015-08-23 21:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Faculty of Science at University of Chittagong
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Patenga[edit]

   
Bangladeshi Boat at Patenga sea beach (07).jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Moheen Reeyad (talk) on 2015-08-23 21:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Patenga (Patenga sea beach)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The scope is imprecise --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Side view of Patenga sea beach (10).jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Moheen Reeyad (talk) on 2015-08-23 21:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Patenga (Patenga sea beach west-east view)

Useful--Aftab (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Washing net at Patenga (05).jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Moheen Reeyad (talk) on 2015-08-23 21:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Patenga (Patenga sea beach)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Motorboats in Patenga (10).jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Moheen Reeyad (talk) on 2015-08-23 21:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Patenga (Patenga sea beach)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Sunsets of Patenga[edit]

   
Sunset at Patenga beach.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Aftab (talk) on 2014-10-09 22:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Sunsets of Patenga (Patenga beach)
Used in:
fr:Chittagong, kl:Chittagong, en:Chittagong, en:Patenga, bn:পতেঙ্গা, bn:বাংলাদেশের পর্যটন
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Sunset of Patenga (14).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Moheen Reeyad (talk) on 2015-08-23 21:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Sunsets of Patenga (North-east view of Patenga beach)

File:Sunset at Patenga beach.jpg is already a VI for this scope. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Sunset of Patenga (15).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Moheen Reeyad (talk) on 2015-08-23 21:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Sunsets of Patenga (North-east view of Patenga beach)

File:Sunset at Patenga beach.jpg is already a VI for this scope. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Sunset of Patenga (16).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Moheen Reeyad (talk) on 2015-08-23 21:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Sunsets of Patenga (South-North view of Patenga beach)

File:Sunset at Patenga beach.jpg is already a VI for this scope. --Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Pending valued image set candidates[edit]

New valued image set nominations[edit]

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

Closed valued image set candidates[edit]