Commons:Valued image candidates

Skip to image nominations

Skip to most valued reviews

Skip to set nominations

These are the candidates to become valued images. Please note that this is not the same as featured pictures or quality images. If you simply want some feedback on your pictures you can get that at photography critiques. Single images can be proposed for valued image (VI) status. Candidates must be proposed as being the most valuable of all Commons' images within a specified scope. Judging is carried out according to the valued image criteria. A Most Valued Review (MVR) is opened where there are two or more candidates competing within essentially the same scope. The rules for promotion can be found at Commons:Valued image candidates/Promotion rules. An image which has previously been declined can be renominated within the same scope only if the issues leading to the original decline have been addressed. Previously nominated images that were closed as "undecided" can be renominated at any time. Once a candidate achieves VI or VIS status it can normally be demoted only if some better candidate replaces it during an MVR. If you would like to nominate an image for VI status, please do so following the instructions below. If you are proposing a better candidate within essentially the same scope as an image which already has VI status, please open an MVR.

Valued Image links: Main VI page Valued image candidates Valued image criteria Valued image scope Valued image value Nomination procedure Review procedure Most Valued Review Promotion rules Valued image closure How to nominate an image for VI status Nominations will be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. Please read those criteria before submitting an image to help cut down on the number of candidates that have a low chance of success. Make sure you understand the concept of scope and how to choose the correct scope for your nomination. Please make sure that your proposed image fulfills all of the necessary criteria before nominating it. For example, if it needs to be geocoded, do that in advance. If no appropriate categories exist, create and link them beforehand. Although some reviewers may help by fixing minor issues during the review process, it is your responsibility as nominator to ensure your image ticks all the necessary boxes before you propose it. If you nominate an image that ignores one of the criteria, don't be surprised if it fails VI review. Adding a new nomination (image) Step 1: Copy the image name into this box (excluding the File: prefix), at the end of the text already present in the box, for example, Commons:Valued image candidates/My-image-filename.jpg. Then click on the "Create new nomination" button. Step 2: Follow the instructions on the page that you are taken to, and save the resulting VIC subpage. Step 3: Manually add the candidate image towards the end of Commons:Valued image candidates/candidate list (under the heading "New valued image nominations"), as the last parameter in the VICs template. Click here, and append the following line as the last parameter of the relevant section: |My-image-filename.jpg so that it looks like this: {{VICs ... |My-image-filename.jpg }} and save the candidate list. Renomination Declined VICs can be renominated by any registered user, but only after one or more of the root cause(s) leading to a decline has/have been addressed. Undecided VICs can be renominated as is although it is still recommended to consider and fix issue(s) which may have hindered a promotion of the candidate in the previous review. Besides fixing issues with the previous nomination the following procedure shall be followed upon renomination. Step 1: Edit the candidate subpage you intend to renominate. All declined and undecided VICs are placed in either Category:Declined valued image candidates, or Category:Undecided valued image candidates and sorted by the date of the previous nomination. Step 2: Replace the previous nomination date and time by pasting in |date={{subst:VI-time}} Step 3: Replace the "undecided" or "declined" status with "nominated" (or "discussed" if you intend to add it to a Most Valued Review). Step 4: If the previous nominator was a different user replace the nominator parameter with |nominator=~~~ Step 5: If the candidate does not already have an archive link to previous reviews: Create one using the following procedure. Cut the text in the previous review section (leave the closing braces "}}") replace the review parameter with |review= {{subst:VIC-archive}} }} Save the page. There is now a red link to Previous reviews. Click the link to create the archive subpage and paste in the previous reviews. Save the previous reviews archive page Step 6: Add the candidate to the candidates list. How to review the candidates How to review an image Any registered user can review the valued image candidates. Comments are welcome from everyone, but neither the nominator nor the original image author may vote (that does not exclude voting from users who have edited the image with a view to improving it). Nominations should be evaluated using the criteria listed at Commons:Valued image criteria. Please read those and the page on scope carefully before reviewing. Reviewing here is a serious business, and a reviewer who just breezes by to say "I like it!" is not adding anything of value. You need to spend the time to check the nomination against every one of the six VI criteria, and you also need to carry out searches to satisfy yourself on the "most valuable" criterion. Review procedure On the review page the image is presented in the review size. You are welcome to view the image in full resolution by following the image links, but bear in mind that it is the appearance of the image at review size which matters. Check the candidate carefully against each of the six VI criteria. The criteria are mandatory, and to succeed the candidate has to satisfy all six. Use the where used field, if provided, to study the current usage of the candidate in Wikimedia projects. If you find usage of interest do add relevant links to the nomination. Look for other images of the same kind of subject by following the links to relevant categories in the image page, and to any Commons galleries. If you find another image which is already a VI within essentially the same scope, the candidate and the existing VI should be moved to Most Valued Review (MVR) to determine which one is the more valued. If you find one or more other images which in your opinion are equally or more valued images within essentially the same scope, you should nominate these images as well and move all the candidates to an MVR. Once you have made up your mind, edit the review page and add your vote or comment to the review parameter as follows: You type You get When *{{Comment}} My Comment. -- ~~~~  Comment My comment. -- Example You have a comment. *{{Info}} My information. -- ~~~~  Info My information. -- Example You have information. *{{Neutral}} Reason for neutral vote. -- ~~~~  Neutral Reason for neutral vote. -- Example You are uncertain or wish to record a neutral vote. *{{Oppose}} Reason for opposing vote. -- ~~~~  Oppose Reason for opposing vote. -- Example You think that the candidate fails one or more of the six mandatory criteria. *{{Question}} My question. -- ~~~~  Question My question. -- Example You have a question. *{{Support}} Reason for supporting. -- ~~~~  Support Reason for supporting. -- Example You think that the candidate meets all of the six mandatory criteria. If the nomination fails one of the six criteria, but in a way that can be fixed, you can optionally let the nominator know what needs to be done using the {{VIF}} template. Your comment goes immediately before the final closing braces "}}" on the page. How to update the status Finally, change the status of the nomination if appropriate: status=nominated When no votes or only neutral votes have been added to the review field (blue image border). status=supported When there is at least one {{Support}} vote but no {{Oppose}} votes (light green image border). status=opposed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote but no {{Support}} votes (red image border). status=discussed When there is at least one {{Oppose}} vote and one {{Support}} vote (yellow image border). Remember the criteria: 1. Most valuable 2. Suitable scope 3. Illustrates well 4. Fully described 5. Geocoded 6. Well categorized. Changes in scope during the review period The nominator is allowed to make changes in scope as the review proceeds, for example in response to reviewer votes or comments. Whenever a scope is changed the nominator should post a signed comment at the bottom of the review area using {{VIC-scope-change|old scope|new scope|--~~~~}}, and should also leave a note on the talk page of all existing voters asking them to reconsider their vote. A support vote made before the change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn.

You can submit new nominations starting on COM:VIC.

Pending valued image candidates

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

43,667 closed valued image candidates
Closed as				Nominations
Promoted			39,330 (90.1%)
Undecided			2,067 (4.7%)
Declined			2,270 (5.2%)

New valued image nominations

View promotion Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2021-06-16 09:09 (UTC) Scope: John Wayne's Cabin sign, Utah Used in: Wikidata:Q104575853  Oppose That doesn't show the whole cabin (which needs to be identified as his cabin in his role in the movie, "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon"), and File:Nathan Brittles house.jpg is best in scope. "Door of the cabin" and "John Wayne's Cabin sign", which are possible scopes for this photo, don't seem like useful scopes to me, but someone might support a nomination in either of those scopes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC) @Ikan Kekek:  Done Thanks for your advice, I modified the scope, best regards.--Pierre André (talk) 08:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)  Comment I said I didn't think it would be a useful scope, though. But maybe. I'll cross out my opposing vote. Make an argument for why this shack deserves two scopes - for the shack and for the sign. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC) @Ikan Kekek: This cabin deserves two scopes because this is the only photo that clearly shows John Wayne's name. In addition it is used by wikidata. Best regards. --Pierre André (talk) 08:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)  Support I'll give this the benefit of the doubt. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 06:28 or 18:28 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-18 09:32 (UTC) Scope: Vulcan Village - centre Used in: Wikidata:Q107285298 Reason: Vulcan Village is small (population a couple of hundred) and this is the location of the bus stop, post box, telephone box and pub. -- Rodhullandemu (talk)  Support This kind of photo could be useful in anyone's article about or which touches on the town. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 06:28 or 18:28 (UTC)
View promotion Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2021-06-20 17:21 (UTC) Scope: Shoreliner (Stavoren) a dirt trap for floating litter in the port of Stavoren. (Detail)  Best in Scope Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. A1Cafel (talk) 03:38, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 06:28 or 18:28 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-21 05:07 (UTC) Scope: Geranium molle (Dove's-foot Crane's-bill) - infrutescence  Support. Very good, useful and often used -- Spurzem (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 06:28 or 18:28 (UTC)
View promotion Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-21 05:09 (UTC) Scope: Un travailleur à Céleyran (A worker at Céleyran) by Toulouse-Lautrec in Musée Toulouse-Lautrec Albi  Support Best in scope andused --Llez (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2021 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 06:28 or 18:28 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2021-06-21 06:00 (UTC) Scope: Natica subglaucinoides, shell  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:11, 22 June 2021 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. A1Cafel (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 06:28 or 18:28 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2021-06-21 10:38 (UTC) Scope: Allegorical fish as a reminiscence of Nicolaus Otto at the Erfinderbrunnen in Koblenz, made by Gernot Rumpf in 1983 Used in: de: Nicolaus Otto  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:12, 22 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 16:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Andrei (talk) on 2021-06-21 11:55 (UTC) Scope: Reuven Rivlin  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 16:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-21 14:09 (UTC) Scope: Thetis Memorial at Woodside - context of plaque Used in: Wikidata:Q1514366  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 16:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-21 14:10 (UTC) Scope: Thetis Memorial at Woodside - close-up of plaque Used in: Wikidata:Q1514366  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 16:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-21 15:38 (UTC) Scope: HMS Birkenhead memorial at Woodside - plaque Used in: Wikidata:Q475704  Support Useful & used.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 16:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2021-06-21 17:58 (UTC) Scope: Allegorical bird as a reminiscence of Carl Clemens Bücker at the Erfinderbrunnen in Koblenz, made by Gernot Rumpf in 1983 Used in: de: Carl Clemens Bücker, sv: Carl Clemens Bücker  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2021-06-21 22:12 (UTC) Scope: Westside aspect of the Iași Palace of Culture, Romania  Support. I wish it were larger and cleaner, but at review size it is fine. it is used on many pages and is best in scope.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lorax (talk • contribs) 01:04, 22 June 2021 (UTC)  Comment Again, this should be described as western exposure or view from the west. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Lorax (talk) on 2021-06-22 00:52 (UTC) Scope: Sunset Lake (Black Sand Basin, Yellowstone National Park) Reason: Photo of Sunset Lake Hot Springs in Yellowstone National Park. The color at the edges is created by microbal mats that vary in color based on the temperature of the water. -- Lorax (talk)  Question Seems best in scope, but what are we looking at in File:Sunset Lake, Yellowstone National Park - panoramio.jpg? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC) The panoramio image is mislabeled, I believe that is an image of Emerald Pool, compare it to this image File:Emerald Pool (7437631710).jpg There are other photos of Emeral Pool if you want to compare at Category:Black Sand Basin Lorax (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-22 03:13 (UTC) Scope: Santa Giustina (Padua) - Chapel of La Pieta by Filippo Parodi - Ceiling  Comment The image depicts the ceiling, there are other images that show most of the interior. The scope could be made more specific. --Tagooty (talk) 03:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)  Comment Very fair: the scope is modified --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)  Support Best in scope; used in en, fr, it wikis. --Tagooty (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: A1Cafel (talk) on 2021-06-22 04:33 (UTC) Scope: Official portraits of Donald Trump Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-22 05:05 (UTC) Scope: Barbarea vulgaris (Winterkresse) - Plant habit  Support Useful & used.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-22 05:07 (UTC) Scope: Un faucon pèlerin (Peregrine Falcon) by Toulouse-Lautrec in Musée Toulouse-Lautrec Albi  Support best in scope.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2021-06-22 05:50 (UTC) Scope: Glycymeris cor, right valve  Support best in scope.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2021-06-22 08:31 (UTC) Scope: Northside aspect of the Holy Trinity Monastery (Strâmba), Romania  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2021-06-22 10:12 (UTC) Scope: Via Sacra of Delphi, Greece Used in: Wikidata: Q105410461 Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Famberhorst (talk) on 2021-06-22 16:51 (UTC) Scope: Rijks Pijlschaal building on the IJsselmeer.  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-22 18:51 (UTC) Scope: Earlestown War Memorial - wide view showing original with later additions Used in: Wikidata:Q26627068  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-22 18:53 (UTC) Scope: Earlestown War Memorial - close view showing the memorial as it was originally built in 1904. Used in: Wikidata:Q26627068  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:16, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2021-06-22 19:09 (UTC) Scope: Adoration of the Magi, painting by Benedikt Beckenkamp in St. Georg (Urmitz), 1778  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2021-06-22 22:11 (UTC) Scope: Stammtisch in Hofbräuhaus am Platzl, Munich  Comment The scope is too broad.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC) Thank you for your opinion. Maybe Stammtisch is more suitable ? --Pierre André (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)  Support OK now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: A1Cafel (talk) on 2021-06-23 03:11 (UTC) Scope: Michel Temer, portrait photography  Comment There is a problem of scope: An official portrait is normative, it cannot be reframed otherwise it is no longer “official”. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC) @Archaeodontosaurus: scope changed--A1Cafel (talk) 08:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)  Support OK now --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-23 05:04 (UTC) Scope: Vicia sativa (Common vetch) - White flower  Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-23 05:05 (UTC) Scope: Champ de courses (racecourse) by Toulouse-Lautrec in Musée Toulouse-Lautrec Albi  Support best in scope.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:00, 24 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2021-06-23 05:58 (UTC) Scope: Neverita olla, shell  Support Best in scope. --Tagooty (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2021-06-23 09:20 (UTC) Scope: Fontaine de Guchen, illuminated at night  Comment I stand to be corrected, but I don't think we use "aspect" that way in English. I'd suggest a scope like "Fontaine de Guchen, viewed from the east", but maybe someone else will have a different suggestion. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC) @Ikan Kekek:  Done Thanks for your advice. You're right, I didn't know how to define the scope.--Pierre André (talk) 20:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)  Comment Great. Now, please help us: Which of the photos of the fountain are viewed from the east? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC) @Ikan Kekek: The photos were taken from the small car park on the "Route de l'Arbizon" perpendicular to the "Route de la Vallée d'Aure" heading west towards Arbizon mount. In this photo File:Village de Guchen (3).jpg the statue looks East at sunrise, so it's viewed from the east, unless I'm mistaken. Best regards.--Pierre André (talk) 08:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)  Comment Thanks. That would seem to be a clearer view of the fountain inasmuch as details are easier to see in that light. Therefore, I recommend adding "night illumination" to your scope for this picture (maybe something like this: "Fontaine de Guchen, illuminated at night" and include "eastern view" if you believe a western view of the night illumination should be reserved as a future scope; otherwise, leave out the direction of view, since there's only one photo taken at night on Commons). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:39, 24 June 2021 (UTC) @Ikan Kekek:  Done Thanks for your advices. Best regards.--Pierre André (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC) There's a formatting problem, and I can't figure out right away how to fix it. Whenever it's fixed, I'll support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC) Fixed, so  Support useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:42, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Александр Байдуков (talk) on 2021-06-23 18:48 (UTC) Scope: Swamp of Chuvnoy-Suo Landscape Used in: wikidata:Q18407145 Reason: Rare photo of a remote and hard-to-reach place -- Александр Байдуков (talk)  Question Note how I fixed the appearance of your scope. Is the photo recognizably distinctive, in that a viewer could tell this apart from another swamp-like location? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC)  Comment Thank you for viewing the photo. I think so. This can be seen from the vegetation: The trees are bright representatives of the marsh forms of pine and birch, the marsh grass cover, typical of the swamps of temperate latitudes. It can be seen that by type, this swamp belongs to the flat swamps of the forest type ... (if I understood your question correctly). -- Александр Байдуков (talk) 17:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)  Comment I'm not sure. What I'm asking is whether this view is distinguishable from views of all other swamps. Maybe that's too much to ask for, but in general, we look for recognizably identifiable scopes and images that clearly show them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-23 19:19 (UTC) Scope: St Patrick's Church, Earlestown - perspective views Used in: Wikidata:Q107331086 Reason: There is a tree in exactly the wrong position for a shot including the west end, so this view shows the south side and tower. -- Rodhullandemu (talk)  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-23 19:20 (UTC) Scope: St Patrick's Church, Earlestown - west front Used in: Wikidata:Q107331086 Reason: See prev comment about the tree. -- Rodhullandemu (talk)  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-23 19:00 (UTC) Scope: Iron Door Club plaque Used in: Wikidata:Q6072467  Comment improve description, please --Ezarateesteban 20:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC) Thanks, sorry, missed that. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)  Support --Ezarateesteban 11:54, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Александр Байдуков (talk) on 2021-06-23 19:51 (UTC) Scope: Karst springs in Russia - Karst spring close-up Reason: The largest and most detailed photo of a karst spring in Russia in the corresponding category -- Александр Байдуков (talk)  Comment The scope is too broad.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2021 (UTC)  Comment Thank you for watching and reviewing. But the scope of application only looks wide, it is practically not provided with high-quality photos –– Александр Байдуков (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Ezarateesteban on 2021-06-23 20:52 (UTC) Scope: Juana Manso  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: — Rhododendrites talk |  on 2021-06-23 22:38 (UTC) Scope: Pontiac Mills  Support An argument could be made for File:Pontiac Mills (02248).jpg, but both are good in different ways. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: — Rhododendrites talk |  on 2021-06-23 22:56 (UTC) Scope: New Haven-style pizza  Best in Scope, and I love this stuff! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: — Rhododendrites talk |  on 2021-06-23 22:57 (UTC) Scope: Sally's Apizza  Best in Scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-24 05:04 (UTC) Scope: Cruciata laevipes (Winterkresse) - Inflorescence  Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-24 05:06 (UTC) Scope: Le député Emile Chautemps by Tomás Leal da Câmara  Best in Scope. Useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2021-06-24 05:40 (UTC) Scope: Hindsiclava perspirata, shell  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2021-06-24 10:47 (UTC) Scope: Saint George, relief on a fountain of Paul Milles from 1983 at the parish church St. Georg (Urmitz)  Support best in scope.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2021-06-24 12:18 (UTC) Scope: Fountain made by Paul Milles in 1983 at the parish church St. Georg (Urmitz), total view from south  Support best in scope.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: — Rhododendrites talk |  on 2021-06-24 12:47 (UTC) Scope: Eleanor Pardee Park Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2021-06-24 16:21 (UTC) Scope: Fratercula arctica (Puffin)  Comment The link in the scope must be on the general category, and not on a geographic category. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)  Done All 3 noms now linked to gallery, which I don't like to do as they usually contain an unrepresentative self-selected sample of images. We have to link to the category where the image can be seen. Usually I don't like geographical scopes for animals, but for certain iconic species where we have hundreds of images, they are useful. Like Commons:Valued image candidates/Mountain gorilla (Gorilla beringei beringei) 2-year-old.jpg. Should we change the VI rules? We are in no position to outlaw geographical scopes. Where would you put an image, for instance, of Panthera leo with hundreds of categories to choose from, many geographical? Charlesjsharp (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2021-06-24 16:23 (UTC) Scope: Fratercula arctica (Puffin) head  Comment Bad categorization of the scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2021-06-24 16:25 (UTC) Scope: Fratercula arctica (Puffin) with Ammodytes tobianus (lesser sand eels)  Comment The link in the scope must be on the general category, and not on a geographic category. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:27, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) on 2021-06-24 19:24 (UTC) Scope: Geothermal power Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-24 17:19 (UTC) Scope: Buildings in Ashton-in-Makerfield - Byrchall High School Used in: Byrchall High School  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-24 18:55 (UTC) Scope: Ashton-in-Makerfield War Memorial Used in: Wikidata:Q95434602  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-24 19:07 (UTC) Scope: St Thomas, Ashton-in-Makerfield Used in: Wikidata:Q95434602  Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-24 19:42 (UTC) Scope: Gates and piers of St Oswald, Ashton-in-Makerfield - view including gate piers Used in: Wikidata:Q26321183 Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Rodhullandemu (talk) on 2021-06-24 19:43 (UTC) Scope: Gates and piers of St Oswald, Ashton-in-Makerfield - close view of the gates Used in: Wikidata:Q26321183 Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2021-06-24 20:58 (UTC) Scope: Maison du Procureur (Guchen), façade Used in: Guchen  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: — 사도바울 (talk) on 2021-06-24 14:40 (UTC) Scope: Seokguram, Grotto of Korea Reason: * Support Useful and Used. Taken by Korean professional photographer Seok-Hong Han. He had taken Seokguram for three times before he died when he set those free.— 사도바울 (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2021 (UTC) -- — 사도바울 (talk)  Comment you cannot vote for your own nomination. We must add a geocoding in caption. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:30, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-25 05:00 (UTC) Scope: Ceratomia catalpae - Male dorsal  Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 05:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2021-06-25 05:02 (UTC) Scope: Céleyran, Vue des vignes (Céleyran, View of the vineyards) by Toulouse-Lautrec in Musée Toulouse-Lautrec Albi  Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2021-06-25 05:44 (UTC) Scope: Turricula exorta, shell  Support best in scope.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2021-06-25 10:39 (UTC) Scope: Fratercula arctica (Puffin) in burrow Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2021-06-25 10:40 (UTC) Scope: Fratercula arctica (Puffin) in flight Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2021-06-25 10:42 (UTC) Scope: Fratercula arctica (Puffin) outside burrow Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Rettinghaus (talk) on 2021-06-25 12:28 (UTC) Scope: Portraits of Wolfgang Carl Briegel Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2021-06-25 15:39 (UTC) Scope: Port de Tallinn, painting by Alexey Bogolybov in Kadriorg Art Museum, 1853 Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2021-06-25 15:57 (UTC) Scope: Portrait de Catherine Dashkova, painting by Ludwig Philipp Tishbeyn in Kadriorg Art Museum, (18th-century) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Joydeep Talk 16:37, 25 June 2021 (UTC) on 2019-03-12 02:17 (UTC) Scope: Ralang monastery front facade Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 16:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Pending Most valued review candidates

Scope: Kreuzberg seen from southwest

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Milseburg (talk) on 2018-04-12 15:12 (UTC) Scope: Kreuzberg seen from southwest Used in: de:Kreuzberg (Rhön) Reason: Most representative view of this prominent mountain -- Milseburg (talk)  Support - Agreed. Best in scope, IMO. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. -- DeFacto (talk). 17:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)  Oppose in favor of the suggested replacement. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 16:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Milseburg (talk) on 2021-03-30 09:54 (UTC) Scope: Kreuzberg seen from the southwest Reason: New version, higher resolution, better quality, now best in scope -- Milseburg (talk)  Support The key point for VIC is that this photo is in better light and sharper at review size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 16:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Scope: Cour d'appel de Colmar

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Gzen92 [discuter] on 2017-11-07 18:32 (UTC) Scope: Cour d'appel de Colmar Reason: National heritage site. -- Gzen92 [discuter]  Comment Perspective correction necessary. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)  New version Gzen92 [discuter] 11:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:19, 9 November 2017 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)  Oppose In favour of the newer version Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 16:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Gzen92 [discuter] on 2021-06-17 08:45 (UTC) Scope: Cour d'appel de Colmar  Support Not a sunny as the other one but building isn't cropped as tightly. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 16:43, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Scope: Bistorta officinalis

View promotion Nominated by: Uoaei1 (talk) on 2014-10-19 07:59 (UTC) Scope: Bistorta officinalis (European bistort), florescence Used in: de:Schlangen-Knöterich  Comment The scope is not properly formatted. The binomial name should be in italics followed by the English vernacular name in parenthesis.. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:06, 19 October 2014 (UTC)  Done Scope changed accordingly, thanks for your advice --Uoaei1 (talk) 08:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC) The scope is perfect. But the caption is poor. In addition to geocoding must put the locality. A good caption ensures better distribution of the image. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 14:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)  Done Caption enhanced with locality information --Uoaei1 (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)  Support Geat --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICbot at 06:28 or 18:28 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Famberhorst (talk) on 2021-06-23 17:08 (UTC) Scope: Bistorta officinalis Inflorescence.  Support. Excellent, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)  Oppose Unfortunately there is already an image promoted in VI for this topic. You have to go through Pending Most valued review candidates . Personally if you choose this path I will vote in favor because your image is much better.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2021 (UTC)  Question Do I have to perform certain actions? Am I hurting someone else with that?--Famberhorst (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2021 (UTC) A competition should not hurt anyone. You have to format your request and place it in the competition. You have a tutorial for that. It's not complicated ... but it's a bit long. Do it: it is an experience to be done.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:26, 24 June 2021 (UTC)  Question I hardly dare to ask, but where can I find such a tutorial?--Famberhorst (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.

Scope: David Cameron, portrait photography

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: A1Cafel (talk) on 2021-06-22 03:08 (UTC) Scope: David Cameron, portrait photography Used in: David Cameron  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2021 (UTC)  Question Is the year relevant? How do we recognize the difference in appearance between his being photographed in 2010 and 2011? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2021 (UTC)  Oppose for scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:59, 24 June 2021 (UTC)  Comment Scope changed, year removed. --A1Cafel (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2021 (UTC)  Comment I have a feeling of deja vu. I spent a long time looking through all the photos of Cameron for a previous nomination. What happened then? You didn't change the scope to being just a portrait of him and it failed? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)  Comment OK, so this series, derived from a standing portrait, is one of the best of the former PM, but I feel like File:David Cameron portrait (cropped).jpg (or one of the other versions derived from File:David Cameron portrait 2013.jpg) is best in scope. It's more evenly lit and more flattering. Please make an argument for why I'm wrong. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC) @Ikan Kekek: I will make a Most Valued Review within this scope--A1Cafel (talk) 03:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)  Comment OK, cool. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2021 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: A1Cafel (talk) on 2021-06-25 03:32 (UTC) Scope: David Cameron, portrait photography 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.

Pending valued image set candidates

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