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
53,363 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
 47,932 (89.8%) 
Undecided
  
 2,966 (5.6%) 
Declined
  
 2,465 (4.6%) 


New valued image nominations[edit]

   

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-21 06:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Altar frontal from Mosoll - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 06:27, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2023-11-22 11:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Chœur de l'église Saint-Pierre-en-Antioche d'Ascq, Villeneuve d'Ascq
Used in:
Église Saint-Pierre-en-Antioche d'Ascq
Reason:
The painting by Willem Werniers: the Wedding at Cana and the furniture consisting of an armchair and two chairs are protected as a historic monument object and listed in the Palissy database, in Villeneuve-d'Ascq -- Pierre André (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-11-22 20:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Fiat Panda 4x40° - right front view
Used in:
de:Fiat Panda
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 06:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-23 06:11 (UTC)
Scope:
The Prophet Ezekiel by Paolo Veronese
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 06:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

View promotion
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-23 06:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Thyatira batis – mounted specimen male dorsal

 Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 06:46, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:13, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2023-11-23 06:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Macrocallista nimbosa (Sunray Venus Clam), left valve
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 06:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2023-11-24 05:39 (UTC)
Scope:
De Slikwerker Sculptuur van Frans Ram. (Information about the mud workers.)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-24 06:15 (UTC)
Scope:
The Surprise by Antonio Canova - Museo Correr
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-24 06:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Thyatira batis – mounted specimen male ventral

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:27, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2023-11-24 06:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Thyca crystallina, shell
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jay.Jarosz (talk) on 2023-11-24 06:53 (UTC)
Scope:
Versam-Safien railway station
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jay.Jarosz (talk) on 2023-11-24 07:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Agricultural vehicles in Switzerland
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jay.Jarosz (talk) on 2023-11-24 07:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Village of Tenna - Switzerland
  •  Comment Look at the scope change for the category. There is still one step missing: you must give the geocoding in the caption of the image. The image is perfectly acceptable. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    *  Comment Thanks Archaeodontosaurus! I've added a caption to the image, please let me know if it looks right now. Also I'm not sure what is meant by "Look at the scope change for the category"? Can you please clarify that part? --Jay.Jarosz (talk) 10:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment I modified the scope syntax, look at the changes. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jay.Jarosz (talk) on 2023-11-24 07:11 (UTC)
Scope:
View of Safien Valley from Tenna
  •  Comment The scope is too broad. View of Safien Valley from the top of Innerbärg road in Tenna would be a very good scope. Don't forget the geocoding in the caption.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:59, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Comment Thank you for the feedback Archaeodontosaurus! I'm still new to the VI process so this has been helpful <3 I've added a caption to the image and updated the scope. I've just removed the "from the top of Innerbärg road" part as it might be too specific? This similar view can be seen from off-road as well. Its common to hike off-road there. Let me know if this works please. --Jay.Jarosz (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment The same subject can be photographed from several different points. The images are then very different and can claim to be eligible in VI. But for that the scopes must be different. The more precise a scope is, the less problem you will have with votes. The following formalization seems to me the most appropriate.View of Safien Valley from the top of Innerbärg road in Tenna --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jay.Jarosz (talk) on 2023-11-24 07:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Reformierte Kirche Tenna

 Question There are several other images that show the exterior view of the church in greater detail. Why is this one more valuable? --Tagooty (talk) 06:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment Good question! I chose this photo as it best represents the geographical context of the church, which makes the church more special than it's architecture detail. --Jay.Jarosz (talk) 10:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Question Idea: would a new scope such as "View of Safien Valley and Tenna Church" work better? --Jay.Jarosz (talk) 10:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Indeed. Suggested: "Reformierte Kirche Tenna (Reformed Tenna Church) and Safien Valley - view from (direction)". Correct the English name, and put the direction. Also, for VI the image must be geocoded. --Tagooty (talk) 13:23, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
     Question Thank you Tagooty! And can you please clarify the geocoding? The image already has GPS data + city/state/country data in the metadata. Where else should I include the geocoding?
  • That is good enough. Since people may not look at the EXIF, it is useful to edit the Summary and add a template {{Location|10.16243|76.4414|heading:315}} (sample numbers) at the bottom. --Tagooty (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2023-11-24 15:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Sylvia nisoria (museum specimens) (barred warbler (nisoria)) eggs
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lystopad (talk) on 2023-11-24 15:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Kurgan steles in M. F. Sumtsov Kharkiv Historical Museum
Reason:
Picture of Cumans grave statues (Baba) dating from IX-XII century and widely spread in Ukrainian steppe. -- Lystopad (talk)
Open for review.
[[File:
|160px]]
Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Анастасия Львоваru/en on 2023-11-24 15:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Sasanian Silver Collection at Hermitage: all exhibits in the hall 391 are presented, with the exception of coins (which actually are part of the coins collection, and not the Sasanian silver).
Reason:
The quality is better than on the museum's website. The images on the museum's website are not freely licensed. Images are described in three languages, links are made to the museum’s website where possible (some objects are not presented on the website). The main author is Darafsh. -- Анастасия Львоваru/en

 Oppose Your nomination is not admissible in this training. On the other hand, the images are excellent, you can present them one by one with a specific scope for each of them, they will be well received. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:08, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Famberhorst (talk) on 2023-11-24 16:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Skeletocutis nivea Small cheese mushroom.

 Comment We must add a geocoding in caption. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:12, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
*✓ Done. Geocoding added. Thanks for your reviews.--Famberhorst (talk) 16:13, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jay.Jarosz (talk) on 2023-11-24 17:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Hay harvest in Versam
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jay.Jarosz (talk) on 2023-11-24 17:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Barns in Tenna, Switzerland
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jay.Jarosz (talk) on 2023-11-24 17:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Hiking and footpath signs in the canton of Graubünden
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Jay.Jarosz (talk) on 2023-11-24 17:26 (UTC)
Scope:
Category:Lindner vehicles in Switzerland
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-25 05:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Child's head, begenning of sixteenth cent from the Correr Museum

 Support Best in scope.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-25 05:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Falcaria lacertinaria – mounted specimen female dorsal

 Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 06:49, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-25 05:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Altar frontal from Mosoll - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2023-11-25 06:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Former Grand-Hôtel du Cap-Martin, Roquebrune-cap-Martin, France - seaward facade
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2023-11-25 06:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Epitonium angulatum, shell
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2023-11-25 07:09 (UTC)
Scope:
Cisticola juncidis (museum specimens) (zitting cisticola (juncidis)) eggs
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-11-25 15:01 (UTC)
Scope:
Pagani Utopia - cockpit
Used in:
de:Pagani Utopia, en:Pagani Utopia, fr:Pagani Utopia
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-26 05:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Settimius Severus (inv. 40) in National Archaeological Museum Venice
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-26 05:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Falcaria lacertinaria – mounted specimen female ventral

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-26 05:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Fragment of a cross with the Ascension of Christ - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2023-11-26 07:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Cisticola juncidis (museum specimens) (zitting cisticola (cisticola)) eggs
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2023-11-26 09:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Barbatia decussata, right valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-11-26 15:39 (UTC)
Scope:
Volkswagen Golf VIII R 20 Years - right rear view
Used in:
de:VW Golf VIII
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-11-26 16:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Alfa Romeo Stelvio QV (2023) - right front view
Used in:
de:Alfa Romeo Stelvio
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2023-11-27 05:40 (UTC)
Scope:
H.G. Miedemagemaal H.G. Miedema pumping station.
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-27 06:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Juvenile Caracalla in Venice National Archaeological Museum
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-27 06:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Église du Sacré-Cœur (Toulouse) - Organ and cantoria
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-27 06:11 (UTC)
Scope:
La mort - Josep Triadó - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2023-11-27 06:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Barbatia decussata, left valve
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2023-11-27 06:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Cettia cetti (museum specimens) (Cetti's warbler (cetti)) 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 06:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-03-24 15:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Dasyprocta punctata (Central American agouti)
  •  Comment
    We already have a VI in this scope and I see at list one more image of comparable quality, and both are used. Should we start MVR for this scope?
  •  Comment Yes it is better to go through MVR. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Best in Scope now and used --LexKurochkin (talk) 05:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 06:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Central Park Tower[edit]

   

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

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

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 06:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
—Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2023-05-01 20:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Central Park Tower - view from 30 Rockefeller Plaza
Reason:
Some minor finishing touches were put on the building since I took the current VI back in April 2021. I have two versions here with slightly different lighting. -- —Percival Kestreltail (talk)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 06:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
—Percival Kestreltail (talk) on 2023-05-01 20:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Central Park Tower - view from 30 Rockefeller Plaza
  •  Comment This is the best of the three, but there are other candidates, and I am not up to looking through all the alternatives right now and might not be in the future. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Yeah, I thought of that, too. That might be a good thing to do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 06:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Maoricolpus roseus manukauensis[edit]

   

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

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

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 06:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2023-05-20 08:13 (UTC)
Scope:
Maoricolpus roseus manukauensis (Rosy Screw Snail), Shell
Reason:
Better specimen in a better photographic quality. -- Llez (talk)

 Comment I don't really see why this one is better. Better resolution and sharpness maybe ? --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 06:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Info Yes, exactly; and also a better specimen --Llez (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 06:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Symphytum ×uplandicum (Russian Comfrey)[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Slaunger (talk) on 2009-06-03 21:32 (UTC)
Scope:
Symphytum ×uplandicum (Russian Comfrey)
Reason:
It is the only image on Commons which shows the entire plant. Parentage: S. asperum × S. officinale. In Denmark, it was previously used as food for pigs, thus it can now be found in clusters here and there. The black roots should be sweet and edible - a property which is also hinted to from the Danish vernacular name, "Foder-Kulsukker", which means "Coal sugar for eating". -- Slaunger (talk)
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 06:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Cartoffel (talk) on 2023-06-06 10:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Symphytum ×uplandicum (Russian Comfrey)
Reason:
I think a cropped version of VI Symphytum xuplandicum plant 2009-05-20.jpg is clearly preferable for reasons of image composition. This here is a somewhat conservative crop and maybe an even more aggressive crop could be even better. -- Cartoffel (talk)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 06:58, 25 November 2023 (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 06:58, 25 November 2023 (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 06:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
   

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Ezarateesteban on 2023-11-26 22:02 (UTC)
Scope:
El Aficionado by Antonio Casanova y Estorach
Open for review.

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