Commons:Valued image candidates/candidate list

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

You can submit new nominations starting on COM:VIC.

Pending valued image candidates[edit]

Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache
51,795 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
46,481 (89.7%) 
Undecided
  
2,879 (5.6%) 
Declined
  
2,435 (4.7%) 


New valued image nominations[edit]

   
Bicicletas by Annemarie Heinrich, c. 1950.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Günther Frager (talk) on 2023-06-03 18:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Bicicletas by Annemarie Heinrich
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Gostra malta.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
PalauanLibertarian (talk) on 2023-06-05 01:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Gostra

I don't see how this can be judged more valuable than the other images? Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.
Donax trunculus 001.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2023-06-05 05:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Donax trunculus ssp trunculus (Truncate Donax), right valve
Pictogram voting info.svg Info
See also here --Llez (talk) 05:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful and used --Ercé (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC) =Reply[reply]
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
Cité internationale de la Dentelle et de la Mode de Calais.- Maquette de machine à vapeur Watt (1885).jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2023-06-05 10:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Watt's parallel motion, view in International City of Lace and Fashion of Calais
Open for review.
Turdus torquatus alpestris MHNT.ZOO.2010.11.186.39.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2023-06-05 13:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Turdus torquatus eggs (ring ouzel ssp alpestris) eggs
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful & used.
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
2016-11-23 KL SALTFJORD - IMO 9470478.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
GRDN711 (talk) on 2023-06-05 21:16 (UTC)
Scope:
KL Saltfjord (ship, 2011) - IMO 9470478 - left (port side) view
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
Paesens-Moddergat. 04-04-2023. (actm.) 33.jpg
View promotion
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2023-06-06 04:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Vissersmonument, Moddergat 1 of 5 parts.
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
(MHNT) Thymelicus lineola - St Foy d'Aigrefeuille - France - male ventral.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-06 05:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Thymelicus lineola – mounted specimen - male ventral

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
(Barcelona) L'escultor - Antoni Fabrés - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-06 05:04 (UTC)
Scope:
L'escultor - Antoni Fabrés - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
(MHNT) Lamium galeobdolon - Inflorescence - Les Martels, Giroussens Tarn.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-06 05:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Lamium galeobdolon subsp. argentatum
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Donax trunculus 002.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2023-06-06 06:11 (UTC)
Scope:
Donax trunculus ssp trunculus (Truncate Donax), left valve
Open for review.
Hurricane-en.svg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
A1Cafel (talk) on 2023-06-06 09:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Structure of tropical cyclones
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment The file description, "diagram of a hurricane," is more descriptive. At any rate, "diagram" and not "structure" should be in the scope, in my opinion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.
Skein winders in Cité internationale de la Dentelle et de la Mode de Calais (2).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2023-06-06 10:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Skein winders in Cité internationale de la Dentelle et de la Mode de Calais, Hauts-de-France
Open for review.
(Barcelona) Autoretrat - Joaquim Sorolla - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-07 04:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Autoretrat - Joaquim Sorolla 1897 - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya
Open for review.
(Cahors) Saint-Cirq-Lapopie, la place du Carol - Henri-Martin - Musée de Cahors Henri-Martin.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-07 04:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Saint-Cirq-Lapopie, la place du Carol - Henri Martin - Musée de Cahors
Open for review.
(Venice) South West well heads in Campo san Geremia.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-07 04:59 (UTC)
Scope:
South West well head in Campo san Geremia to Venice.
Open for review.
Duplicaria spectabilis 01.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2023-06-07 05:52 (UTC)
Scope:
Duplicaria spectabilis (Graceful Auger), shell

Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope --GRDN711 (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.
2019-09-10 DUNE - ENI 06003820.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
GRDN711 (talk) on 2023-06-07 14:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Dune (ship, 1963) - ENI 06003820 - back (stern) view
Open for review.
Dingy skipper (Erynnis tages baynesi) male Burren.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-06-07 14:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Erynnis tages baynesi (Dingy skipper) male, dorsal
Open for review.
Dingy skipper (Erynnis tages baynesi) female Burren.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-06-07 14:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Erynnis tages baynesi (Dingy skipper) female dorsal
Open for review.
Plans-relief of Calais (CCI-1904) (1).jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2023-06-07 21:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Plans-relief of Calais (CCI-1904), Cité internationale de la Dentelle et de la Mode de Calais
Open for review.
Halki sentinel2.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
⍨PLib🗣️ on 2023-06-08 01:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Aerial photographs of Chalki
Open for review.
(Barcelona) Ocell de golfa - Luis Masriera - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-08 05:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Ocell de golfa - Luis Masriera - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya

Symbol support vote.svg The only one in scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.
(Cahors) Le Bassin avec la petite porte à Marquayrol - photogravure - Henri Martin - Musée de Cahors Henri-Martin.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-08 05:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Le Bassin avec la petite porte à Marquayrol - photogravure - Musée de Cahors

Symbol support vote.svg The only one in scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.
(Venice) Madonna dai cherubini rossi - Giovanni Bellini - gallerie Accademia.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-08 05:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Madonna of Red Cherubs by Giovanni Bellini - Gallerie dell'Accademia in Venice
Open for review.
Grey treepie near Kasauli, Himachal Pradesh.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Satdeep Gill (talk) on 2023-06-08 05:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Dendrocitta formosae himalayana (Grey treepie) sitting on ground
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment I have no idea if this is the only ssp himalayana but it doesn't show the tail well. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.
Terebra argus 01.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2023-06-08 06:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Terebra argus (Argus Auger), shell

Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.
Torgau 25 Pfennig 1921.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2023-06-08 09:34 (UTC)
Scope:
25 Pfennig "Notgeld" banknote of Torgau, Germany.
Open for review.
Torgau 50 Pfennig 1921.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2023-06-08 09:36 (UTC)
Scope:
50 Pfennig "Notgeld" banknote of Torgau, Germany.
Open for review.
Tavel wayside cross 1788.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2023-06-08 09:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Wayside cross (1788) in Tavel (Gard), France.
Open for review.
Common blue (Polyommatus icarus mariscolore) female Burren.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-06-08 20:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Polyommatus icarus mariscolore (Common blue) female dorsal
Open for review.
Common blues (Polyommatus icarus mariscolore) mating Burren.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-06-08 20:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Polyommatus icarus mariscolore (Common blues) mating (male above)
Open for review.
(Cahors) Etude pour - Dans la lumière - Henri Martin - musée de Cahors Henri-Martin.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-09 05:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Etude pour - Dans la lumière - Henri Martin - Musée de Cahors

Symbol support vote.svg Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.
(MHNT) Euphorbia verrucosa - Boileau, Bouloc, Haute-Garonne, France - Inflorescences.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-09 05:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Euphorbia verrucosa - Inflorescences
Open for review.
(Venice) Chiesa Santi Apostoli - Deposizione e sepoltura di cristo.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-09 05:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Santi Apostoli (Venice) - Byzantine-style Venetian artist, deposition and burial of Christ, beginning of the 14th century

Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.
Donax trunculus 003.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2023-06-09 05:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Donax trunculus ssp. adriaticus (Truncate Donax), right valve
Open for review.
2023-05-22 01 UK Pilot Boat DOVORIAN - MMSI 235037385 04.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
GRDN711 (talk) on 2023-06-09 08:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Dovorian (ship, 2006) - MMSI 235037385 – right (starboard) side
Reason:
Best image the starboard side of this ship by name. -- GRDN711 (talk)
  • Pictogram-voting question.svg Question Would a better scope be Aqua Star Nelson 42' Pilot? Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment IMHO, as a scope, “Aqua Star Nelson 42' Pilot” would be too wide and not represent the image. The “Nelson 42’ Pilot” model built by Aqua Star Guernsey UK refers only to the molded glass reinforced plastic (GRP) hull that was turned over to the builder, Goodchild Marine Services of Burgh Castle for completion. Based on direction from the Dover UK Harbor Board, they added all the extra components from engines to communications to livery; in completing this purpose-built pilot and harbor boat. My current scope supports the VI nomination that this image is the most valuable of the starboard view of this specific workboat in Commons. --GRDN711 (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment The scope is okay, though consider "starboard rear ..." as more accurate. Is there a small CCW tilt? The image is used, I'll support it after responses. --Tagooty (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.
Altenkirchen 10 Pfennig 1921.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2023-06-09 16:52 (UTC)
Scope:
10 Pfennig "Notgeld" banknote of Altenkirchen (Westerwald), RV: Schloss Crottorf.
Open for review.
Würzburg 50 Pfennig Walther von der Vogelweide.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2023-06-09 16:48 (UTC)
Scope:
50 Pfennig "Notgeld" banknote of Würzburg, RV: Walther von der Vogelweide.
Open for review.
Perl-Sehndorf Wegekreuz im Waschhaus.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2023-06-09 16:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Wayside cross (17th century) in the former washhouse of Perl-Sehndorf, Germany.
Open for review.
Impossible Whopper 1.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Mx. Granger (talk  · contribs) on 2023-06-09 17:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Impossible Whopper
Used in:
w:en:Whopper, w:en:List of Burger King products, w:en:Impossible Whopper
Open for review.
Azure damselflies (Coenagrion puella) in tandem female blue form Burren.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-06-09 19:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Coenagrion puella (Azure damselflies) in tandem, female blue form

Symbol support vote.svg Support Useful and best in scope --Tagooty (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.
Flight IXW ATR Indigo Chennai Aug22 D72 24849.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2023-06-10 03:03 (UTC)
Scope:
VT-IXW (aircraft) in flight
Used in:
it:ATR 72wikidata:Q119238342
Open for review.
(Barcelona) Dona dibuixant - Josep Duran - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-10 04:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Dona dibuixant - Josep Duran - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya
Open for review.
(Venice) Well head in Campo Santa Sofia.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-10 04:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Well head in Campo Santa Sofia to Venice.
Open for review.
(MHNT) Spialia sertorius - Bossey, Haute-Savoie, France - male ventral.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-10 04:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Spialia sertorius – mounted specimen - male ventral
Open for review.
Donax trunculus 004.jpg
Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2023-06-10 05:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Donax trunculus ssp. adriaticus (Truncate Donax), left valve
Open for review.

Closed valued image candidates[edit]


Pending Most valued review candidates[edit]

Grasshopper[edit]

   
Acrididae grasshopper-2.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Eusebius (talk) on 2008-11-17 14:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Anacridium aegyptium (Egyptian grasshopper)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Fulfills criteria. I prefer the natural light. Lycaon (talk) 07:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1. Grasshopper November 2008-3.jpg: 0
2. Acrididae grasshopper-2.jpg: +1 <--
=>
Image:Grasshopper November 2008-3.jpg: Declined.
Image:Acrididae grasshopper-2.jpg: Promoted. <--
--Eusebius (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose inferior in resolution --Milseburg (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Excellent for me! Very good image und very often used -- Spurzem (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose Less detailed --LexKurochkin (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is much more detailed at review size. We are supposed to be judging these images in terms of how they would be used in articles, which is as thumbnails. "Inferior in resolution" is not a valid reason to oppose a file that is larger and more detailed at review size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Egyptian grasshopper (Anacridium aegyptium) on crab apple (Malus sylvestris) Corfu.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-10-16 11:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Anacridium aegyptium (Egyptian grasshopper)

Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment Why are there two colors for one specy ? --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment This is very common for grasshoppers. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I just notices this comment Ikan Kekek. The guidelines say "The image must look good on-screen at the review size" but they don't say that is the moist important criteria or that is what matters. Looking good at review size is a qualifying criteria, that's all. I've no issue with the oppose, just the reason. Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:32, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Well, since the entire purpose of VIC is to select images that look best in online articles, it's obvious that we are not choosing them primarily with regard to factors that are relevant to QIC and not to their appearance in online articles. See Commons:Valued image value: "To become a valued image (VI) or a valued image set (VIS) the candidate must be the most valuable illustration of all images on Commons which fall within the scope of the nomination. Value is judged on the basis of the candidate's potential for online use within other Wikimedia projects. Usability in printed form is not considered." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Isn’t this a featured picture though? The quality and detail looks pretty good to me… what is it about the detail that is at issue? just trying to understand the objection. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:46, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And I don't understand your question. The other photo has a much larger grasshopper at review size, so more details are more easily visible. Comparing the images at full size is not the point of VIC. These images are judged on the basis of their usefulness as thumbnails in online articles. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Unidentified Photographer statue at the Barracks Arch, Perth, Western Australia[edit]

   
Public art - Unknown photographer, Barracks Arch, Perth.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
LexKurochkin (talk) on 2023-03-23 17:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Unidentified Photographer statue at the Barracks Arch (Perth, Western Australia)
Used in:

Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment the blown-out sky is too much distracting here. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Sebring12Hrs and also per my comments on the other image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Unidentified Photographer statue at the Barracks Arch, Perth, WA 2019 Oct 30 (7558).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
LexKurochkin (talk) on 2023-03-23 17:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Unidentified Photographer statue at the Barracks Arch (Perth, Western Australia)

The blown-out sky is less distracting here. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per Sebring12Hrs and also because I find the angle somewhat better for this photo. Neither photo is perfect, but I do think this one is better. (By the way, the status is still "discussed" until the most valuable review has been decided.) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

agouti[edit]

   
Central American agouti (Dasyprocta punctata).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2019-08-05 09:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Dasyprocta punctata (Central American agouti)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Central American agouti (Dasyprocta punctata) Los Tarrales.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-03-24 15:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Dasyprocta punctata (Central American agouti)
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment
    Central American agouti (Dasyprocta punctata).jpg
    Central American agouti, Costa Rica, Januaru 2018 (40308009202).jpg
    We already have a VI in this scope and I see at list one more image of comparable quality, and both are used. Should we start MVR for this scope?
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment Yes it is better to go through MVR. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope now and used --LexKurochkin (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Black-cowled oriole[edit]

   
Icterus prosthemelas.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lycaon (talk) on 2010-05-08 10:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Icterus prosthemelas (Black-cowled Oriole)
Reason:
Only image on Commons and duly geo-referenced. -- Lycaon (talk)

Symbol support vote.svg Support all criteria met --George Chernilevsky talk 14:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Black-cowled oriole (Icterus prosthemelas prosthemelas) Orange Walk.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-04-12 17:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Icterus prosthemelas prosthemelas (Black-cowled oriole) showing back feathers

current VIC for image showing chest feathers

  • Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope, useful and used. Significantly better than the current VI as of 12.04.2023 --[[User:|LexKurhockin]] (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Significantly better than the current VI --Milseburg (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support agree with the others: better picture for this scope. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment Charles - suggest scope of this nomination match current VI with excess description "showing back feathers" dropped. --GRDN711 (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Charles – I did not see reference to another scope with chest species for this bird and you did not provide a link. Either way, it is not germane to the issue here. Requirements for Value Image scopes are defined in COM:VIS and those are the guidelines to that define the validity of VI scopes which are an essential part of the VI rating.
You have a good quality image that is of better quality than the one you are competing against in this MVR and would vote for it if the scopes were the same.
Why have you made your VI scope too narrow with the addition of "showing back feathers” as unnecessary description? If you think it is important detail, it should go in the image description.
Why are you comparing an image you have identified as sub-species to an image with a higher taxonomy level of species?
Per COM:VIS – “If several species are impossible to distinguish visually, then the scope should be at a higher taxonomy level.” --GRDN711 (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)--GRDN711 (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment Charles While being calm is a welcome state of mind, clarity on your VI scope is needed here.
Are you stating that the yellow back feathers in this image support that this bird is of the Icterus prosthemelas prosthemelas sub-species as opposed to the I. p. praecox sub-species? Can you really compare it to the other MVR image VI with scope of Icterus prosthemelas species?
IMHO the extra description of feather coloration on chest or back is good information to support a VI nomination as I. p. prosthemelas sub-species (already has a VI), but it should not be part of the scope. --GRDN711 (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info
    I do not see any problem with having rather detailed scopes for birds or any other subject. It is better than too general scope IMO. --LexKurochkin (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment Hello LexKurochkin Overly detailed scopes tend to take the form of unique description that makes the image appear more valuable than it really is to Commons and can create multiple VI ratings for images of the same bird. Overly detailed scopes are specifically discouraged per COM:VIS.
“Note that scope is not a simple description of your image. Rather, it defines a generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example.”
There is good reading in COM:VIS on too wide, too narrow (or overly descriptive), and just right scopes.
Further good reading is at COM:VIS Domain-specific scope guidelines for animals (includes birds) where the “General rule is: one scope per species…”. It goes on to allow identifiable sub-species and sub-scopes for identifiable male/female (fledgling, immature etc.) characteristics and specific behavioral aspects (nesting, flying etc.). All of these added sub-scope options are fine and in theory, it may be possible to have a dozen VI ratings for a given bird or animal.
IMHO when more description beyond these guidelines is allowed, the scope becomes too narrow and overly wordy. I have no problem with this extra information on chest and back feathers being presented as a reason to support the VI nomination (one on the non-mandatory fields in the nomination) for identification of this bird as representing a specific species or sub-species scope. --GRDN711 (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose this MVR nomination as the scope is not the same as the scope of the existing image being compared to.
  • The other image (definitely not as good) has the current VI rating for the entire species. The nominated MVR (the better image) has a different and invalid sub-scope. As stated above per COM:VIS, acceptable sub-scopes for animals (birds) must feature a unique aspect of behavior. Feather color and placement is a function of the definition of the species no matter what angle the bird is viewed from and does not represent a valid sub-scope. It would not be a Black-cowled oriole if the feathers weren't colored in a defined manner, front and back. --GRDN711 (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

One Vanderbilt[edit]

   
One Vanderbilt April 2021.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
—Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2021-04-26 22:39 (UTC)
Scope:
One Vanderbilt, New York
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
One Vanderbilt April 2023.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
—Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2023-04-16 18:27 (UTC)
Scope:
One Vanderbilt
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Violet patched skipper[edit]

   
Violet-patched skipper (Monca crispinus).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2019-06-16 19:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Monca crispinus (Violet-patched skipper) underside
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 06:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Reply[reply]

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose leg and 1 antenna being out of focus is distracting. Lorax (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Violet patched skipper (Monca crispinus) Honduras.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-04-23 14:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Monca crispinus (Violet-patched skipper) underside

Symbol support vote.svg Support better lighting and better control of depth of field than alternative Lorax (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

war memorial[edit]

   
Monument aux morts de la Seconde Guerre mondiale (Fortschwihr).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 [discuter] on 2021-05-11 11:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Monument aux morts de Fortschwihr
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Monument aux morts des Première et Seconde Guerres mondiales (Fortschwihr).jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 (talk) on 2023-04-24 15:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Monument aux morts de Fortschwihr

Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment Fuller side view. Gzen92 (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Central Park Tower[edit]

   
Central Park Tower April 2021.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
—Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2022-01-09 17:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Central Park Tower - view from 30 Rockefeller Plaza
  • Symbol support vote.svg Best in Scope. Very good image, useful and often used -- Spurzem (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Reply[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Best in scope to me. Much more details and there aren't CAs on this one. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 09:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment At low resolution, this image works best of the three because the entire building is more clearly and more evenly separated from the background.--Cartoffel (talk) 06:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Central Park Tower April 2023 1.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
—Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2023-05-01 20:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Central Park Tower - view from 30 Rockefeller Plaza
Reason:
Some minor finishing touches were put on the building since I took the current VI back in April 2021. I have two versions here with slightly different lighting. -- —Percival Kestreltail (talk)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Central Park Tower April 2023 2.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
—Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2023-05-01 20:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Central Park Tower - view from 30 Rockefeller Plaza
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment This is the best of the three, but there are other candidates, and I am not up to looking through all the alternatives right now and might not be in the future. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment Yeah, I thought of that, too. That might be a good thing to do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Highland rubyspot[edit]

   
Hetaerina cruentata.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lycaon (talk) on 2009-09-18 05:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Hetaerina cruentata, male

Symbol support vote.svg Support All criteria for a VI --Cesco77 (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support - Only image of high quality displaying the Hetaerina cruentata. Tiptoety talk 21:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Highland rubyspot (Hetaerina cruentata) male.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-05-11 15:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Hetaerina cruentata (Highland rubyspot) male
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Maoricolpus roseus manukauensis[edit]

   
Maoricolpus roseus 01.JPG
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2013-10-22 06:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Maoricolpus roseus manukauensis (Rosy Screw Snail), Shell

Symbol support vote.svg Support : useful. --JLPC (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Maoricolpus roseus 02.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2023-05-20 08:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Maoricolpus roseus manukauensis (Rosy Screw Snail), Shell
Reason:
Better specimen in a better photographic quality. -- Llez (talk)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Symphytum ×uplandicum (Russian Comfrey)[edit]

   
Symphytum xuplandicum plant 2009-05-20.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Slaunger (talk) on 2009-06-03 21:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Symphytum ×uplandicum (Russian Comfrey)
Reason:
It is the only image on Commons which shows the entire plant. Parentage: S. asperum × S. officinale. In Denmark, it was previously used as food for pigs, thus it can now be found in clusters here and there. The black roots should be sweet and edible - a property which is also hinted to from the Danish vernacular name, "Foder-Kulsukker", which means "Coal sugar for eating". -- Slaunger (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Symphytum ×uplandicum plant 2009-05-20, cropped.jpg
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Cartoffel (talk) on 2023-06-06 10:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Symphytum ×uplandicum (Russian Comfrey)
Reason:
I think a cropped version of VI Symphytum xuplandicum plant 2009-05-20.jpg is clearly preferable for reasons of image composition. This here is a somewhat conservative crop and maybe an even more aggressive crop could be even better. -- Cartoffel (talk)
Open for review.
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.