Commons:Valued image candidates

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

Shortcut: COM:VIC

Skip to image nominations Skip to image nominations Most valued reviews Skip to most valued reviews Skip to set nominations Skip to set nominations

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

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

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

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

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

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

How to nominate an image for VI status[edit]

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

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

Adding a new nomination (image)[edit]

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


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

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

|My-image-filename.jpg

so that it looks like this: 

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

and save the candidate list.

Renomination[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

|nominator=~~~

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

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

Step 6: Add the candidate to the candidates list.

How to open a Most Valued Review[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

How to review the candidates[edit]

How to review an image[edit]

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

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

Review procedure[edit]

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


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

Changes in scope during the review period[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
53,728 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
 48,270 (89.8%) 
Undecided
  
 2,987 (5.6%) 
Declined
  
 2,471 (4.6%) 


New valued image nominations[edit]

   

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-12-30 10:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Anaspides tasmaniae (Mountain shrimp)
Reason:
low quality, but fascinating -- Charlesjsharp (talk)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-12-30 15:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Tiliqua nigrolutea (Blotched blue-tongued lizard) showing the blue tongue
Open for review.

View promotion
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2024-01-01 06:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Dosinia lupinus ssp. lincta, left valve
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2024-01-01 09:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Motacilla flava eggs (western yellow wagtail (thunbergi)) eggs
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Ввласенко (talk) on 2024-01-01 11:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Kozachij and Olgin islands (zoologival preserve)
Used in:
Europe de l'Est
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2024-01-01 18:34 (UTC)
Scope:
Detail of the Terp fan de Takomst Detail on the northeast east side.
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-01-02 06:07 (UTC)
Scope:
16th century Prie-Dieu belonged to Francesco Morosini in Museo Correr
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-01-02 06:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Diacrisia sannio – mounted specimen male ventral

 Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 06:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-01-02 06:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Male bust First half of the 1st century A.D - Museo Archeologico Nazionale
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:19, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2024-01-02 06:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Typhis tubifer, shell
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 10:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2024-01-02 06:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Motacilla flava eggs (western yellow wagtail (flava)) eggs
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 10:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2024-01-02 10:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Église Saint-Vaast (Leers-Nord ), view from Pl. Communale
Used in:
Global usage
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Balles2601 (talk) on 2024-01-02 10:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Teucrium aureum inflorescence.
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2024-01-02 12:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Myuchelys latisternum (Saw-shelled turtle) dorsal
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2024-01-02 12:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Nyctimystes infrafrenatus (White-lipped tree frog) side view
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2024-01-02 15:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Motacilla flava eggs (western yellow wagtail (flavissimaa)) eggs
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2024-01-02 18:03 (UTC)
Scope:
De Blesse Memorial stone WWII.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2024-01-02 18:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Tachyglossus aculeatus setosus (Short-beaked echidna) side view
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Terragio67 (talk) on 2024-01-02 18:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Chroicocephalus ridibundus (winter plumage) – Dorsal view
Reason:
I spent some time to focus on the plumage of this interesting and mysterious seagull (black-headed gull) that changes color during the winter. -- Terragio67 (talk)
  •  Support Useful & Used but We must add a geocoding in caption. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose There are over 400 images of this bird (far too many to review) but this is not the best - the bird is looking away. I cannot see where this is used. Charlesjsharp (talk) 14:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes Charles, you are right, there are less than 500 images and some of them might be better than mine. Furthermore, almost 50 percent of photos are incorrectly placed in the (winter plumage) category. In fact, these photos taken between the months of October and November present intermediate and not yet definable characteristics of winter plumage. But let me say that it doesn't matter where the bird is looking to, because the aspect that gives value to the image is how the plumage is depicted. It tends to be definitely white on the head (instead of black) and light gray on the wings (instead of gray and brown). Considering that there are actually too many photos to evaluate, I would propose narrowing the category into: Chroicocephalus ridibundus (winter plumage) - side-rear view. Terragio67 (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added the missing geocoding, thanks. Terragio67 (talk) 16:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment I would oppose that scope. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Ok, I'll keep the VIc for the proposed category "Chroicocephalus ridibundus (winter plumage)", even though the scope is quite large. After all, I really paid attention to focus to the whitening and replacement of the bird's plumage which can be clearly seen up to the tail. Terragio67 (talk) 20:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment I modified the scope. It seemed more precise to me to add the suffix Dorsal view because 80% of image focus in the rear part... --Terragio67 (talk) 09:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2024-01-02 19:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Mercedes-Benz S214 - left rear view
Used in:
de:Mercedes-Benz E-Klasse, de:Mercedes-Benz Baureihe 214
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2024-01-02 19:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Mercedes-Benz C254 - left rear view
Used in:
de:Mercedes-Benz GLC, fr:Mercedes-Benz Classe GLC (Type 254)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
MasterRus21thCentury (talk) on 2024-01-02 20:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Mintimer Shaimiev - 2019 official portrait
Used in:
ru:Шаймиев, Минтимер Шарипович
@Archaeodontosaurus ✓ Done is User:MasterRus21thCentury/gallery and Минтимер Шарипович Шаймиев. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
J. N. Squire (talk) on 2024-01-02 23:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Mickey Mouse (film series)
Used in:
Global usage
Reason:
First color poster used for the Mickey Mouse films series (including Steamboat Willie), and first published design of its character in colors -- J. N. Squire (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-01-03 05:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Allegory of the league against the Turks, Museo Correr in Venice
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-01-03 05:30 (UTC)
Scope:
Ocnogyna corsicum – mounted specimen male dorsal

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-01-03 05:32 (UTC)
Scope:
El retaule de l'amor by Julio Romero de Torres - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2024-01-03 06:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Tritia bocholtensis, shell
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2024-01-03 08:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Motacilla flava eggs (western yellow wagtail (iberiaie)) eggs
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2024-01-03 14:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Dasyurus viverrinus (Eastern quoll) black morph
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2024-01-03 14:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Dasyurus viverrinus (Eastern quoll) fawn morph
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2024-01-03 14:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Notamacropus rufogriseus rufogriseus (White wallaby) female
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2024-01-03 15:36 (UTC)
Scope:
La maison du Canal (Estaimpuis), view from Canal de L' Espierres
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Eka343 (talk) on 2024-01-03 01:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Penjor
Used in:
https://id.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penjor?useskin=vector, https://ban.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pénjor?useskin=vector, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penjor
  •  Comment The scope is too broad; we must reduce the scope to 'Explanatory diagram' or 'illustration'...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry at first I'm not quite understand what scope mean, even then you suggestion of 'Explanatory diagram' or 'illustration' is too broad. I think the right scope is Penjor or penjor illustration because it specifically talking about penjor. Eka343 (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment No, it's not the image we expect from this scope: it's a drawing. The scope is not good. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2024-01-03 16:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Immature flower of a Rudbeckia fulgida
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2024-01-03 17:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Château de la Royère (Néchin), ruins view from Rue de la Royère
Used in:
Global usage
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2024-01-03 19:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Motacilla cinerea eggs (grey wagtail (canariensis)) eggs
  • I've suggested before that the subspecies is in the scope alongside the scientific name, not mixed in with the generic name. It seems more logical. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, most often there is no "scope" for subspecies... what should we do?

thank you --Ercé (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2024-01-03 19:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Borgward AG automobiles - stores
Used in:
de:Borgward Group, en:Borgward Group, fr:Borgward Group, pl:Borgward Group
  •  Question do we think this justifies a VI scope? Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Comment I nominated this pic, since the return of Borgward was not successful and there exist no more Stores.--Alexander-93 (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lorax (talk) on 2024-01-04 04:04 (UTC)
Scope:
Francis Scott Key Bridge (Washington, D.C.) from the Georgetown waterfront
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lorax (talk) on 2024-01-04 04:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Langley High School (Fairfax County, Virginia) main entrance
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lorax (talk) on 2024-01-04 04:20 (UTC)
Scope:
McLean High School main entrance
  •  Question Are we happy that any school can have a scope? This is not in line with the VI guidelines Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Comment It seems to me that if something is notable enough to have a wikipedia article it would be notable enough to have a VI (and some things that don't have wikipedia articles could be VI worthy too). Looking at the VI guidelines, the suggestions for building VI's is significantly more restrictive than animals and plants, maybe they should be revisited. I'd be interested in hearing other people's opinions Lorax (talk) 04:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support OK for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-01-04 06:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Cofanetto nuziale quadrangolare by Embriachi workshopin - Museo Correr
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-01-04 06:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Ocnogyna corsicum – mounted specimen male ventral

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-01-04 06:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Crozier of Mondoñedo - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2024-01-04 06:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Nuttallia obscurata, right valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2024-01-04 13:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Motacilla cinerea eggs (grey wagtail (schmitzi)) eggs
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2024-01-04 17:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Keystone (1769) as spolia in a wall near Ausoniusstraße 6, Trier, Germany.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2024-01-04 18:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Reformierte Kirche Scuol East side.
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
B3251 (talk) on 2024-01-04 19:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Imperial Theatre, Saint John
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2024-01-03 14:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Hypsiprymnodon moschatus (Musky rat-kangaroo)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2024-01-04 22:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Vombatus ursinus (Common wombat) female with joey
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2024-01-04 22:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Vombatus ursinus (Common wombat) joey
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-01-05 06:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of Elizabeth Hanover Princess of Great Britain and Ireland Pious Landgravine of Hessen-Homburg by Giovanni Trossarelli - Museo Correr Venice
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-01-05 06:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Artimelia latreillii lusitanica f.flava – mounted specimen - female dorsal

 Support Useful --Llez (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-01-05 06:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Montre de Gui Rumault, horloger du duc de Lorraine, à réveil - Musée Paul Dupuy Toulouse
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2024-01-05 06:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Nuttallia obscurata, left valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2024-01-05 10:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Motacilla cinerea eggs (grey wagtail (cinerea)) eggs
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 (talk) on 2024-01-05 12:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Fish ladders in Vogelgrun.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2024-01-05 17:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Restored House in Scuol Plaz.

 Best in Scope Terragio67 (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Terragio67 (talk) on 2024-01-05 18:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Yawning gulls – Black-headed gull - winter plumage
Reason:
At the moment, it's the only yawning bird inside the Yawning animals category. -- Terragio67 (talk)
  •  Comment The scope is not properly formatted. The binomial name should be in italics followed by the english common name in parenthesis. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done, thanks for your indication. --Terragio67 (talk) 07:53, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-01-06 05:51 (UTC)
Scope:
Female portrait Late 2nd - eraly 3rd century AD - Venice National Archaeological Museum

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-01-06 06:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Artimelia latreillii lusitanica f.flava – mounted specimen - female ventral

 Support Useful --Llez (talk) 06:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2024-01-06 06:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Orant (Porteur d'offrande) Royaume de Champa (Vietnam), Musée Georges Labit Toulouse

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2024-01-06 06:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Crassispira cerithina, shell

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2024-01-06 09:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Smart Hashtag 1 Brabus - right rear view
Used in:
de:Smart 1
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2024-01-06 09:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Lamborghini Huracán Evo GT Celebration - left front view
Used in:
en:Lamborghini Huracán
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2024-01-06 10:02 (UTC)
Scope:
Motacilla citreola (museum specimens) (citrine wagtail (citreola)) eggs
Open for review.



Pending Most valued review candidates[edit]

agouti[edit]

   

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 10:03, 4 January 2024 (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)Reply[reply]
  •  Best in Scope now and used --LexKurochkin (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Best in Scope now. --Tupungato (talk) 15:50, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 10:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Portrait of Vicente Guerrero[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Aurelio de Sandoval (talk) on 2021-01-21 17:47 (UTC)
Scope:

Retrato Vicente Guerrero por Anacleto Escutia en Palacio Nacional (Mexico)

(Portrait of Vicente Guerrero by Anacleto Escutia in Palacio Nacional (Mexico))

Previous reviews

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 10:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
ErickTErick (talk) on 2023-10-31 21:45 (UTC)
Scope:

Retrato póstumo del presidente Vicente Guerrero en el Museo Nacional de Historia, Ciudad de México

(Posthumous portrait of President Vicente Guerrero in the National Museum of History, Mexico City)
Reason:
The version of this image which currently considered the most valuable within its scope is of much lower quality than this newer version. In addition, the name given to the scope is factually wrong about the location of the painting (it is not within Palacio Nacional) and Mexico's Spanish name is misspelled (it's México, not Mexico). -- ErickTErick (talk)
  •  Comment There is already an image promoted in VI: you have to go to Pending Most valued review candidates --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Started MVR ErickTErick (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 10:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

El Aficionado - Antonio Casanova y Estorach[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ezarateesteban on 2023-11-26 22:02 (UTC)
Scope:
El Aficionado by Antonio Casanova y Estorach

 Comment The original file is the .tiff : File:El Aficionado - Antonio Casanova y Estorach.tiff. Everypeople can create a better processed image from this file. So what are we suposed to do ? --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am doing it according this reccomendation Ezarateesteban 23:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 10:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ezarateesteban on 2023-11-26 22:00 (UTC)
Scope:
El Aficionado by Antonio Casanova y Estorach

 Comment The original file is the .tiff : File:El Aficionado - Antonio Casanova y Estorach.tiff. Everypeople can create a better processed image from this file. So what are we suposed to do ? --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 10:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Anciens bains municipaux de Colmar[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 [discuter] on 2018-01-22 12:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Exterior of anciens bains municipaux (Colmar)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:18, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 10:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Gzen92 (talk) on 2023-12-29 07:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Exterior of anciens bains municipaux (Colmar)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 10:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
To initiate a most valued review, please go to the dedicated MVR sub page.
Refresh page for new nominations: purge this page's cache

All open candidates in an MVR have to have their status set as "discussed" while the review is ongoing. Only when all candidates are due for closure can the MVR be closed.

Refer to Most valued review, the promotion rules and the instructions for closure for details.

Pending valued image set candidates[edit]

Warning This section has been deactivated because of technical issues. Please do not add any VI set candidate.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Valued_image_candidates&oldid=751225986"