Commons:Valued image candidates

Shortcut: COM:VIC

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 open a Most Valued Review 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 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

50,289 closed valued image candidates
Closed as				Nominations
Promoted			45,072 (89.6%)
Undecided			2,806 (5.6%)
Declined			2,411 (4.8%)

New valued image nominations

View promotion Nominated by: SHB2000 (talk) on 2022-12-29 12:02 (UTC) Scope: Le centre-bourg Saül, French Guiana Used in: various pages through Q910382  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Sandro Halank (talk) on 2022-12-29 12:54 (UTC) Scope: Mark French Used in: de:Liste der Biografien/Fren, de:Mark French (Eishockeytrainer), en:Mark French (ice hockey), fr:Mark French (hockey sur glace), ru:Френч, Марк, d:Q6767674  Comment It would be better without the glasses... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Open for review.
View promotion Nominated by: Alexander-93 (talk) on 2022-12-29 13:37 (UTC) Scope: Jeep Wrangler Rubicon (JL) - left front view Used in: es:Jeep Wrangler  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-12-29 18:40 (UTC) Scope: Phelsuma ornata (Mauritius ornate day gecko)  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:19, 30 December 2022 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View promotion Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2022-12-29 18:53 (UTC) Scope: Wayside cross opposite the church of Sennecé-lès-Mâcon, France.  Best in Scope and useful, good image with good colors-- Spurzem (talk) 20:07, 29 December 2022 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-12-30 05:59 (UTC) Scope: Boloria improba improbula - mounted specimen male ventral  Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 07:25, 30 December 2022 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View promotion Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-12-30 06:00 (UTC) Scope: Femme orientale à la fontaine - Charles-Théodore Frère - Musée des Beaux Arts de Narbonne  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-12-30 06:02 (UTC) Scope: Femme accroupie (Blanchisseuse) 1893 - Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec - Musée Toulouse-Lautrec  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:36, 30 December 2022 (UTC)  Comment I am concerned that with nominating many part-finished sketches we are a very long way from the VI guidelines: Not every work of art is worth a Valued Image scope. A scope is justified for instance if the work is the most significant work (or one of the most significant works) of an artist having an article on its own on any Wikipedia, or if it is a seminal work in some way. Perhaps Archaeodontosaurus you could propose some changes to the guidelines? Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC) It all depends on the notoriety of the author. If a simple sketch is piously preserved in a public collection, there is no problem: it is eligible. A work by an unknown artist in a private collection will seem suspicious to me and will probably be rejected. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC) If so, then you do need to propose a change to the VI guidelines which I would be happy to support. Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC) Common sense is enough. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View promotion Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2022-12-30 07:23 (UTC) Scope: Lunulicardia hemicardium (Pacific Half Cockle). right valve  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Alexander-93 (talk) on 2022-12-30 11:41 (UTC) Scope: Mini Countryman (F60) Plug-In-Hybrid - right rear view Used in: de:Mini Countryman  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Terragio67 (talk)Terragio67 on 2022-12-30 13:23 (UTC) Scope: Duomo (Milan) - Main bronze door top of door too dark. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC) Reply: Yes Charles, you're right. The upper part is dark, because there are more than 70 cm between the jambs and the main door, besides there is a protective mesh that worsens the situation. Attempting to make the top visible would make the remaining parts overexposed. I do not want to justify myself, in fact this issue is also clearly visible in the other photos of the same category. I would just like to point out that at the moment this image seems to be the most accurate, without people, animals (mainly pigeots) and objects that disturb the view. Terragio67 (talk) 22:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)  Comment Uploaded a new version, it is softer but now a large part of the top door is quite visible. Terragio67 (talk) 13:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Alexander-93 (talk) on 2022-12-30 17:12 (UTC) Scope: Peugeot e-Traveller - right rear view Used in: de:Peugeot Traveller, uk:Peugeot Traveller  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Balles2601 (talk) on 2022-12-30 19:12 (UTC) Scope: Micromeria canariensis inflorescence.  Comment Difficult to see at thumbnail size. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2022-12-30 22:34 (UTC) Scope: Coffre orné du Baptême du Christ Hôtel-Dieu de Beaune, (16e siècle).  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2022-12-30 22:56 (UTC) Scope: Coffre à pilastres cannelés, Hôtel-Dieu de Beaune, (16e siècle).  Comment Left tilt and especially a barelization of the lower part easy to correct. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:09, 31 December 2022 (UTC)  Done corrections, best regards.--Pierre André (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2022 (UTC)  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: SHB2000 (talk) on 2022-12-31 00:43 (UTC) Scope: Norfolk Island Used in: various pages, including d:Q31057 Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2022-12-31 00:53 (UTC) Scope: 13 bis rue de Fleurus (Lille) Reason: House, 13 bis rue de Fleurus in Lille (inventory of landscape and urban architectural heritage of European Metropolis of Lille number : A110 (IPAP) -- Sebring12Hrs (talk)  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:13, 31 December 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-12-31 06:53 (UTC) Scope: Boloria napaea - mounted specimen- female dorsal  Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 07:14, 31 December 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-12-31 06:54 (UTC) Scope: Jacques-Louis David - Portrait d'un élève - Musée des Beaux-Arts de Narbonne Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-12-31 06:55 (UTC) Scope: A Sailing Boat or Boats at Sea with Blustery Clouds - William Turner - Tate Britain Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2022-12-31 07:11 (UTC) Scope: Lunulicardia hemicardium (Pacific Half Cockle), left valve  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2022-12-31 11:03 (UTC) Scope: Coffre à vêtements, Hôtel-Dieu de Beaune, (15e siècle).  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:56, 1 January 2023 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2022-12-31 11:58 (UTC) Scope: Coffre à farine, Hôtel-Dieu de Beaune.  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-01-01 05:32 (UTC) Scope: Boloria napaea (Napaea fritillary) - Mounted specimen - female ventral  Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2023 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-01-01 05:33 (UTC) Scope: Passage Genet, Alger - Charles-Baptiste Schreiber - Musée des Beaux-Arts de Narbonne Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-01-01 05:35 (UTC) Scope: Palau Nacional (Barcelona) - Main dome - Fresco by Francesc d'Assís Galí Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2023-01-01 07:37 (UTC) Scope: Rissoina modesta, shell  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2023-01-01 11:43 (UTC) Scope: Coffre à vêtements n° 50, Hôtel-Dieu de Beaune, (15e siècle). Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2023-01-01 18:29 (UTC) Scope: Bronze sculpture Action Enchained, without arms by Aristide Maillol in Banyuls-sur-Mer, France.  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-01-02 06:30 (UTC) Scope: Nymphalis antiopa (aberrant form Ex larva) mounted specimen - male dorsal  Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 07:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-01-02 06:32 (UTC) Scope: Bédouine à la couverture - Alexandre Roubtzoff - Musée des Beaux Arts de Narbonne Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-01-02 06:33 (UTC) Scope: The Black Veil - Edyth Starkie - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2023-01-02 07:33 (UTC) Scope: Gibberula sueziensis, shell  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2023-01-02 11:39 (UTC) Scope: Tapestries in the Hôtel-Dieu de Beaune Songe de Jacob, (16th century), Côte-d'Or Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2023-01-02 11:44 (UTC) Scope: Tapestries in the Hôtel-Dieu de Beaune Isaac et Jacob, (16th century) Côte-d'Or  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Balles2601 (talk) on 2023-01-02 14:09 (UTC) Scope: Lavandula canariensis subsp. canariae inflorescence.  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-01-02 15:08 (UTC) Scope: Pteropus niger (Mauritian flying fox) male in flight, showing wing underside Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-01-02 15:14 (UTC) Scope: Pteropus niger (Mauritian flying fox) in flight, showing wing upperside Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-01-02 15:16 (UTC) Scope: Pteropus niger (Mauritian flying fox) in flight, showing head Unusually, this bat may be worth three scopes Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-01-03 06:01 (UTC) Scope: Aglais urticae - Aberration ex larva - mounted specimen male dorsal  Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 07:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC) Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-01-03 06:02 (UTC) Scope: Femme dans un intérieur à Alger - Albert Girard - Musée des Beaux Arts de Narbonne Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-01-03 06:03 (UTC) Scope: Retrat de Josep Puigcarbó - Josep Cusachs - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2023-01-03 07:13 (UTC) Scope: Tucetona pectunculus (Comb Bittersweet), right valve Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Skimel (talk) on 2023-01-03 08:46 (UTC) Scope: TC Electronic Polytune Open for review.
Review it! (edit) Nominated by: SHB2000 (talk) on 2023-01-03 09:57 (UTC) Scope: Main Range Track, Kosciuszko National Park, New South Wales Used in: d:Q21938090 and derivative used on voy:en:Mount Kosciuszko summit trails Open for review.

Pending Most valued review candidates

Römer

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Der Wolf im Wald (talk) on 2022-06-15 02:50 (UTC) Scope: Römer (Frankfurt am Main)  Comment I am ready to support it, but I suggest to internationalize the scope wording—e.g “Römer (Frankfurt am Main)”. --Myrabella (talk) 15:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)  Info scope changed from Frankfurter Römer to Römer (Frankfurt am Main) -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)  Request I must have been absent-minded because I forgot to ask you to geocode that image. So I do it now! --Myrabella (talk) 17:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)  Info geocode added ;) -- Der Wolf im Wald (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)  Support Quite OK to me now, all criteria met. --Myrabella (talk) 21:27, 30 November 2009 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 12:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)  Oppose as not the whole of the building per the other nom. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Wolf im Wald on 2022-06-15 02:50 (UTC) Scope: Römer (Frankfurt am Main) Reason: good perspective, nice light and good overall quality IMO -- Wolf im Wald  Support. This image is valuable and useful too for me. But I like your other image of the Römer with front view still better. Perhaps you should spezify the scope. -- Spurzem (talk) 12:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)  Comment Hallo Lothar, ich antworte dir mal auf Deutsch. Das Problem ist, dass auch die beiden nicht rötlichen Gebäudeteile rechts im Bild zum Römer gehören. Das wusste ich damals nicht, als ich das alte Bild geschossen habe. Daher denke ich, dass das neue Bild anschaulicher ist und das alte sollte seine VI-Auszeichnung verlieren. Am Scope sollte daher wohl nichts verändert werden. Grüße und danke für dein Pro! :-) -- Wolf im Wald 19:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)  Info Restarted the nomination because of existing VI. Please vote below. -- Wolf im Wald 02:50, 15 June 2022 (UTC) Ich verstehe den Sinn des Manövers nicht. Mir gefallen beide Bilder gut, und da sie aus unterschiedlichen Blickwinkeln aufgenommen sind, könnten beide ausgezeichnet werden. Aber mir ist es egal; ich verstehe sowieso nicht, nach welchen Kriterien hier bewertet wird, zumal es von heute auf morgen anders sein kann. Viele Grüße -- Spurzem (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC) Ich finde das andere Bild bietet keinen Mehrwert und da es ohnehin technisch veraltet und fotografisch schlechter ist, braucht es auch keine Auszeichnung. Grüße -- Wolf im Wald 01:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)  Info The building is not fully represented in the old photo because it consists of 5 parts and the two on the right, which look slightly different in color, are cut off. In addition, the old picture does not show very well that the building facade has a bend on the left side between the first and the 2nd part of building near the blue EU flag (see [1]). -- Wolf im Wald 01:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)  Support per "Info" above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Horses of the Basque Country

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Q28 (talk) on 2022-07-07 00:58 (UTC) Scope: Horses of the Basque Country Q28, if horses of the Basque Country are visually recognizable as different from horses in other places and there is as yet no valued image in this category, please nominate the photo you consider best in scope. I see no reason for us to rate several images before you've taken those steps. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC) Do you mean that I only keep the nomination of one pic and withdraw all the other very close pictures? Q28 (talk) 14:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC) @Ikan Kekek\ Q28 (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC) Please use the normal nomination process, not Most Valuable Review. Decide which picture is best in scope, as I said. But first, make sure you know that horses from the Basque Country are visually distinguishable from horses from other places. Are they? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC) @Ikan Kekek, although the answer is no, in the previous nomination, "horse" was considered too wide, so I can only use "Horses of the Basque Country" as the scope of nomination. Q28 (talk) 05:02, 16 July 2022 (UTC) You can't unless there's something recognizably different about the appearance of Basque horses than horses in, say, Asturias. Valued image scopes must be visually distinguishable. Please read Commons:Valued image scope. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:14, 16 July 2022 (UTC)  Oppose this entire MVR contest, per above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2022  Oppose not a useful scope. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)(UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Q28 (talk) on 2022-07-07 00:59 (UTC) Scope: Horses of the Basque Country  Oppose not a useful scope. Charlesjsharp (talk) 19:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Q28 (talk) on 2022-07-07 01:07 (UTC) Scope: Horses of the Basque Country  Oppose photoshop without good justification for it Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Q28 (talk) on 2022-07-07 00:59 (UTC) Scope: Horses of the Basque Country Previous reviews  Comment I can't see any difference with the other picture. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Mathildenhöhe

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Ikar.us (talk) on 2022-08-30 02:31 (UTC) Scope: Mathildenhöhe in Darmstadt, Germany Reason: The community buildings on the hilltop, least hidden by scaffolding and water.Renomination, previously commented, but undecided. --Ikar.us (talk) -- Ikar.us (talk)  Support All criteria met for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 19:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)  Oppose Too much shadow. Not best in scope any more: Better ist now: File:Darmstadt Mathildenhöhe.jpg --Milseburg (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Wolf im Wald on 2022-08-30 02:31 (UTC) Scope: Mathildenhöhe Reason: good light and beneficial perspective IMO. -- Wolf im Wald  Oppose There are scaffoldings on "Exhibition building" in this image. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 11:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)  Support Better light, higher resolution, more detail --Milseburg (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)  Support Fewer shadows, better lighting. Would be even better without the scaffolding, but this is currently best in scope. Lorax (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Schloss Sigmaringen

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Berthold Werner (talk) on 2015-09-04 11:04 (UTC) Scope: Sigmaringen castle, view from northwest  Support Very nice picture what shame is not used in encyclopedias. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC) Now it is. --Berthold Werner (talk) 10:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)  Oppose I think it is not the best in scope. The best is File:Schloss Sigmaringen NW.jpg IMO.--Jebulon (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)  Support --Jacek Halicki (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC) Result: 2 support, 1 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)  Oppose dull light, unfavorable composition: missing very right part of the castle, not best in scopre any more. Best is File:Schloss Sigmaringen 2022.jpg --Milseburg (talk) 11:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)  Oppose in favor of the alternative. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)  Oppose in favor of other image. - --GRDN711 (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Milseburg (talk) on 2022-09-17 10:40 (UTC) Scope: Sigmaringen castle, view from northwest Reason: Best in scope, higher resolution, whole front, better light -- Milseburg (talk)  Support Clearly better as an image of just the castle. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)  Support Better light, better perspective. -- Wolf im Wald 21:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)  Support Better image of the two. --GRDN711 (talk) 19:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Grashopper

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) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 1 January 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) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Apataxia cerithiiformis, shell

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2015-01-24 21:18 (UTC) Scope: Apataxia cerithiiformis, Shell  Support--Jacek Halicki (talk) 22:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. — Revi 04:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)  Oppose per remarks on the alternative nomination. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2022-12-05 11:00 (UTC) Scope: Apataxia cerithiiformis, shell Reason: Meanwhile I got a much better preserved specimen, this one -- Llez (talk)  Oppose I can't see any difference with the other apart from the color. This one is yellow, the other is white. Why a different color could make a better scope ? The competition should last months (years ?). Not necessecary to me. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 10:08, 8 December 2022 (UTC)  Info First: Yes, the color is relevant. The other is a faded specimen in which the typical coloration is lacking (compare with other pictures in the internet). We had no better specimen at that time on Commons. This here is the real coloration of the species (yellowish with a darker banding). Second: At the other, the border of the aperture is rubbed off, at this one it is well formed and typical for the species. Third: The ribs of the other are partly rubbed off as well, as are the rows of knots, which are both much better visible on this one. --Llez (talk) 12:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)  Support You're the expert, so per your remarks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 11:47, 1 January 2023 (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

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