Commons:Valued image candidates/candidate list

You can submit new nominations starting on COM:VIC.

Pending valued image candidates

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

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Günther Frager (talk) on 2023-06-03 18:47 (UTC) Scope: Bicicletas by Annemarie Heinrich  Support Nice photo by a noted photographer; could be useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)  Support --GRDN711 (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)	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) Open for review.
View promotion Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2023-06-05 05:21 (UTC) Scope: Donax trunculus ssp trunculus (Truncate Donax), right valve  Info See also here --Llez (talk) 05:27, 5 June 2023 (UTC)  Support Useful and used --Ercé (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC) = Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	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.
View promotion Nominated by: Ercé (talk) on 2023-06-05 13:51 (UTC) Scope: Turdus torquatus eggs (ring ouzel ssp alpestris) eggs  Support Useful & used. Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: GRDN711 (talk) on 2023-06-05 21:16 (UTC) Scope: KL Saltfjord (ship, 2011) - IMO 9470478 - left (port side) view  Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View promotion Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2023-06-06 04:36 (UTC) Scope: Vissersmonument, Moddergat 1 of 5 parts.  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-06 05:03 (UTC) Scope: Thymelicus lineola – mounted specimen - male ventral  Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:14, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
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  Best in Scope, useful and used --LexKurochkin (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-06 05:05 (UTC) Scope: Lamium galeobdolon subsp. argentatum  Support Beautiful image, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2023-06-06 06:11 (UTC) Scope: Donax trunculus ssp trunculus (Truncate Donax), left valve  Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: A1Cafel (talk) on 2023-06-06 09:00 (UTC) Scope: Structure of tropical cyclones  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) Open for review.
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  Support. Good and useful image -- Spurzem (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	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  Best in Scope, useful and used --LexKurochkin (talk) 12:31, 7 June 2023 (UTC)  Support --GRDN711 (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Open for review.
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  Best in Scope, useful and used --LexKurochkin (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC)  Info Nice one. Thank you! --LexKurochkin (talk) 12:33, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	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.  Support. Useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 05:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2023-06-07 05:52 (UTC) Scope: Duplicaria spectabilis (Graceful Auger), shell  Best in Scope --GRDN711 (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: GRDN711 (talk) on 2023-06-07 14:26 (UTC) Scope: Dune (ship, 1963) - ENI 06003820 - back (stern) view  Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-06-07 14:23 (UTC) Scope: Erynnis tages baynesi (Dingy skipper) male, dorsal  Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-06-07 14:27 (UTC) Scope: Erynnis tages baynesi (Dingy skipper) female dorsal  Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Open for review.
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.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: ⍨PLib🗣️ on 2023-06-08 01:47 (UTC) Scope: Aerial photographs of Chalki  Comment We must add a geocoding in caption. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:09, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Open for review.
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  The only one in scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	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  The only one in scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Open for review.
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 Please check category. --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)  Done Oops Thanks...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Satdeep Gill (talk) on 2023-06-08 05:27 (UTC) Scope: Dendrocitta formosae himalayana (Grey treepie) sitting on ground  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) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2023-06-08 06:02 (UTC) Scope: Terebra argus (Argus Auger), shell  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2023-06-08 09:34 (UTC) Scope: 25 Pfennig "Notgeld" banknote of Torgau, Germany.  Support. Good and useful -- Spurzem (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2023-06-08 09:36 (UTC) Scope: 50 Pfennig "Notgeld" banknote of Torgau, Germany.  Support. Good and useful -- Spurzem (talk) 10:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2023-06-08 09:28 (UTC) Scope: Wayside cross (1788) in Tavel (Gard), France.  Support. Good image, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-06-08 20:55 (UTC) Scope: Polyommatus icarus mariscolore (Common blue) female dorsal  Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-06-08 20:56 (UTC) Scope: Polyommatus icarus mariscolore (Common blues) mating (male above)  Support Useful and used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Open for review.
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  Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-09 05:13 (UTC) Scope: Euphorbia verrucosa - Inflorescences  Support useful. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Open for review.
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  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 16:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2023-06-09 05:43 (UTC) Scope: Donax trunculus ssp. adriaticus (Truncate Donax), right valve  Support useful. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Open for review.
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)  Question Would a better scope be Aqua Star Nelson 42' Pilot? Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)  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)  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) Open for review.	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.  Support. Good and useful -- Spurzem (talk) 17:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Open for review.
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.  Support. Good and useful -- Spurzem (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	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.  Support. The only in scope, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2023 (UTC) Open for review.
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.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-06-09 19:58 (UTC) Scope: Coenagrion puella (Azure damselflies) in tandem, female blue form  Support Useful and best in scope --Tagooty (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Tagooty (talk) on 2023-06-10 03:03 (UTC) Scope: VT-IXW (aircraft) in flight Used in: it:ATR 72 • wikidata:Q119238342  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	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.
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.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-06-10 04:36 (UTC) Scope: Spialia sertorius – mounted specimen - male ventral Open for review.
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

• Promoted valued image candidates
• Declined valued image candidates

Pending Most valued review candidates

Grasshopper

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Eusebius (talk) on 2008-11-17 14:42 (UTC) Scope: Anacridium aegyptium (Egyptian grasshopper)  Support Fulfills criteria. I prefer the natural light. Lycaon (talk) 07:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC) 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)  Oppose inferior in resolution --Milseburg (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)  Support Excellent for me! Very good image und very often used -- Spurzem (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)  Weak oppose Less detailed --LexKurochkin (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2023 (UTC)  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) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-10-16 11:37 (UTC) Scope: Anacridium aegyptium (Egyptian grasshopper)  Comment Why are there two colors for one specy ? --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 15:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)  Comment This is very common for grasshoppers. Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)  Support Superior in resolution. --Milseburg (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)  Support Better resolution, more details shown --LexKurochkin (talk) 08:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)  Oppose Less detailed at review size, which is all that matters at VIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC) 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) 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) 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) 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) 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

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: List of public art in Western Australia  Comment the blown-out sky is too much distracting here. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 19:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)  Oppose per Sebring12Hrs and also per my comments on the other image. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)	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)  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) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

agouti

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2019-08-05 09:38 (UTC) Scope: Dasyprocta punctata (Central American agouti)  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2019 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-03-24 15:31 (UTC) Scope: Dasyprocta punctata (Central American agouti)  Comment 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?  Comment Yes it is better to go through MVR. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)  Best in Scope now and used --LexKurochkin (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Black-cowled oriole

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)  Support all criteria met --George Chernilevsky talk 14:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Lycaon (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)  Oppose There are better images in the same scope. Low quality. --LexKurochkin (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2023 (UTC)  Oppose Meanwhile inferior in this scope. --Milseburg (talk) 09:03, 13 April 2023 (UTC)  Oppose Better pictures of this bird backside available. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 13:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)	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  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)  Support Significantly better than the current VI --Milseburg (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)  Support agree with the others: better picture for this scope. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)  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) "showing back feathers" needed as there is another scope with chest feathers GRDN711. The importance of these scopes is demonstrated on final post on my Wikipedia talk page  Oppose @Charlesjsharp: @LexKurochkin: @Milseburg: @Achim Raschka: 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) I will try to stay calm. Please look at this current VIC. I repeat: The importance of these scopes is demonstrated on final post on my Wikipedia talk page. 21:39, 17 April 2023 (UTC)  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)  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)  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)  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) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

One Vanderbilt

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: —Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2021-04-26 22:39 (UTC) Scope: One Vanderbilt, New York  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)  Oppose Not as good as the other candidate. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)  Oppose Better photos are available. Lorax (talk) 01:24, 16 May 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: —Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2023-04-16 18:27 (UTC) Scope: One Vanderbilt  Support A clearer view. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)  Support overall better than the other option Lorax (talk) 01:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Violet patched skipper

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charles (talk) on 2019-06-16 19:29 (UTC) Scope: Monca crispinus (Violet-patched skipper) underside  Support Useful & used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 06:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)  Oppose leg and 1 antenna being out of focus is distracting. Lorax (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-04-23 14:48 (UTC) Scope: Monca crispinus (Violet-patched skipper) underside  Support better lighting and better control of depth of field than alternative Lorax (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

war memorial

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Gzen92 [discuter] on 2021-05-11 11:27 (UTC) Scope: Monument aux morts de Fortschwihr  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2021 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)  Support Clearer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Gzen92 (talk) on 2023-04-24 15:28 (UTC) Scope: Monument aux morts de Fortschwihr  Comment Fuller side view. Gzen92 (talk) 15:34, 24 April 2023 (UTC)  Oppose Too much shadow. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:01, 29 April 2023 (UTC)  Oppose Per Ikan. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Central Park Tower

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: —Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2022-01-09 17:44 (UTC) Scope: Central Park Tower - view from 30 Rockefeller Plaza  Best in Scope. Very good image, useful and often used -- Spurzem (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 01:19, 14 January 2022 (UTC)  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)  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) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)	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)  Oppose Low details, and a lot of CAs. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 09:16, 15 May 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: —Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2023-05-01 20:17 (UTC) Scope: Central Park Tower - view from 30 Rockefeller Plaza  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)  Comment @Ikan Kekek: Fair, I feel the same way about many large categories. But from what I can tell, most of the other files in this category show the building in its unfinished state (you can tell by the brighter blue protective coating on the glass) and/or looking up from a low angle. The best alternatives to my photos is probably Central Park Tower 2022.jpg or a crop of Midtown Manhattan from Weehawken September 2021 001.jpg. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 21:32, 5 May 2023 (UTC)  Comment Also, I wouldn't be against adding separate scopes for different angles. The building looks similar but not completely the same on all sides. —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 21:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)  Comment Yeah, I thought of that, too. That might be a good thing to do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Highland rubyspot

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Lycaon (talk) on 2009-09-18 05:43 (UTC) Scope: Hetaerina cruentata, male  Support All criteria for a VI --Cesco77 (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)  Support - Only image of high quality displaying the Hetaerina cruentata. Tiptoety talk 21:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Result: 2 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Yann (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)  Oppose Much less detailed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:13, 13 May 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-05-11 15:22 (UTC) Scope: Hetaerina cruentata (Highland rubyspot) male  Support Much more detailed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 13 May 2023 (UTC)  Support Better lighting makes it easier to see details. Lorax (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Maoricolpus roseus manukauensis

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2013-10-22 06:45 (UTC) Scope: Maoricolpus roseus manukauensis (Rosy Screw Snail), Shell  Support : useful. --JLPC (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)	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)

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)  Support OK for me. Lycaon (talk) 21:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Yann (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)	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)  Comment Symphytum uplandicum x Bocking 14.jpg also seems nice enough and very useful, but shows a very different stage of growth. -- Cartoffel (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2023 (UTC) 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.