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
53,128 closed valued image candidates
 Closed as Nominations 
Promoted
  
 47,712 (89.8%) 
Undecided
  
 2,960 (5.6%) 
Declined
  
 2,456 (4.6%) 


New valued image nominations[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-10-28 16:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Volkswagen ID.7 - cockpit
Used in:
de:VW ID.7, en:Volkswagen ID.7, fr:Volkswagen ID.7, hu:Volkswagen ID.7, ru:Volkswagen ID.7, uk:Volkswagen ID.7
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 08:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-10-28 16:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Maserati MC20 Cielo - cockpit
Used in:
de:Maserati MC20
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 08:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-10-29 18:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Citroën C4 X - cockpit
Used in:
de:Citroën C4 X, fr:Citroën C4 X, sr:Citroën C4, uk:Citroën C4
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 08:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-10-29 18:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Hess trolleybuses in Salzburg

 Comment This image seems a better depiction of the bus, front without reflections and showing the length. --Tagooty (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-10-29 18:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Mitsubishi ASX (2nd generation) - cockpit
Used in:
de:Mitsubishi ASX, en:Renault Captur, fr:Renault Captur II - Mitsubishi ASX II, it:Mitsubishi ASX, pl:Mitsubishi ASX, uk:Mitsubishi ASX, zh:三菱ASX
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 08:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-10-30 09:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Mercedes-Benz X254 - cockpit
Used in:
de:Mercedes-Benz X 254, en:Mercedes-Benz GLC, fr:Mercedes-Benz Classe GLC (Type 254), it:Mercedes-Benz X254, uk:Mercedes-Benz GLC-Клас
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-10-30 17:05 (UTC)
Scope:
Porsche 992 Carrera coupes - right front view
Used in:
cs:Porsche 992, de:Porsche 911, de:Sportwagen
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Ezarateesteban on 2023-10-30 18:48 (UTC)
Scope:
El nacimiento de la Virgen María by Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen
  •  Comment El nacimiento de la Virgen María - Jacob Cornelisz. van Oostsanen.jpg is much better used. It would be good to swap the two images for the competition.
This is a restored version of that file (removed scratches and a white point) Ezarateesteban 11:08, 31 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think we should use digital restorations to represent artworks as VIs, because the artworks don't actually look like that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The actual look of the subject isn't a criteria for VI Ezarateesteban 22:49, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That's crazy to me, and I think we have the right to take it into account, as it constitutes being the most valuable image of something for the photo to actually look like the piece that's represented in it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-10-30 19:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Audi A1 citycarver - right front view
Used in:
de:Audi A1 GB, en:Audi A1
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-10-31 07:45 (UTC)
Scope:
Mercedes-AMG C 43 (W206) - left rear view
Used in:
de:Mercedes-Benz Baureihe 206
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-10-31 07:47 (UTC)
Scope:
Volkswagen Polo II Classic - left front view
Used in:
de:VW Polo II, de:Volkswagen Polo Mk2
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-10-31 14:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Honda e:Ny1 - right rear view
Used in:
de:Honda HR-V
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Terragio67 (talk) on 2023-10-31 18:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Nova Gorica train station
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 08:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2023-11-01 02:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Detail of ruin Mas Pils, former estate of the monastery of Sant Quirze de Colera, Spain.
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 08:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2023-11-01 02:23 (UTC)
Scope:
Inscription (1769) above the entrance to Hotel Canaleta in Espolla, Spain.
Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 08:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-01 05:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Kunyu tushuo by Ferdinand Verbiest - Biblioteca Nazinale Marciana

 Best in Scope, useful and used --LexKurochkin (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 08:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-01 05:37 (UTC)
Scope:
Censer second quarter of the twelfth century - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya

 Best in Scope, useful and used --LexKurochkin (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 08:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-01 05:40 (UTC)
Scope:
Hecuba and the Trojan women offer the peplos to Pallas by Antonio Canova in Correr Museum

 Best in Scope and useful --LexKurochkin (talk) 14:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 08:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jaqen (talk) on 2023-11-01 15:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Roberto Weber
Used in:
d:Q17254558, it:Roberto Weber
Reason:
Only in scope. -- Jaqen (talk)

Useful and used.--Alexander-93 (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2023-11-01 16:17 (UTC)
Scope:
Catalan street sign "Carrer Església", in Espolla, Spain.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Palauenc05 (talk) on 2023-11-01 16:20 (UTC)
Scope:
Natural art: "Wooden beast" eating dried herbs.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lystopad (talk) on 2023-11-01 18:41 (UTC)
Scope:
Pokrovskyi Monastery in Kharkiv – view from Constitution Square.
Reason:
Important religious and architectural complex in Kharkiv. -- Lystopad (talk)
  • Lystopad, can you please make the scope briefer and more encyclopedic, without background such as your second sentence, and please link to an appropriate Commons category? You can look at any other nomination on this page in edit mode and Commons:Valued image scope for guidance, and let us know if you have any questions after you've had a chance to check those out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Ikan Kekek: Fixed! Please check if it is suitable now. --Lystopad (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Best in scope. It looks like another view of this monastery deserves a scope, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:20, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-02 06:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Architectural perspective by Francesco Battaglioli - Gallerie Accademia

 Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 06:22, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-02 06:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Altar cross from Romanesque Treasure of Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya

 Best in Scope--Alexander-93 (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-02 06:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Septimius Severus as Serapis in National Archaeological Museum Venice
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2023-11-02 06:18 (UTC)
Scope:
Serratovola rubicunda, left valve
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2023-11-02 07:00 (UTC)
Scope:
Sylvia atricapilla eggs (Eurasian blackcap (atricapilla)) eggs

 Best in Scope--Alexander-93 (talk) 17:58, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-11-02 17:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Volvo EX30 - right front view
Used in:
de:Volvo Car Corporation, de:Geely, de:Volvo EX30, ru:Volvo EX30, uk:Volvo EX30

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-11-02 17:56 (UTC)
Scope:
Aiways U6 - cockpit
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-11-02 17:57 (UTC)
Scope:
Lexus LBX - right front view
Used in:
de:Toyota New Global Architecture, de:Lexus LBX, pl:Lexus LBX, ru:Lexus LBX
  •  Support. A bit brightened and okay now, often used and useful -- Spurzem (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2023-11-02 17:58 (UTC)
Scope:
ELRT tram 433 in Villeneuve-d'Ascq, view from Pl. Van Gogh
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Terragio67 (talk) on 2023-11-02 18:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Historic floating boats (Cesenatico)ː Bragozzo and Trabaccolo
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Tagooty (talk) on 2023-11-03 03:58 (UTC)
Scope:
Banca Carige, Piazza Raffaele de Ferrari, Genoa
Used in:
en:Banca Carige • de:Banca Carige
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-03 06:03 (UTC)
Scope:
Paulhac‎, Haute-Garonne France - L'église Notre-Dame (Church of Our Lady)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-03 06:06 (UTC)
Scope:
Francesco Morosini, by Francesco Bertos, Museo Correr in Venice

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-03 06:08 (UTC)
Scope:
Altar frontal from Avià - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya

 Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 12:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2023-11-03 06:31 (UTC)
Scope:
Sylvia curruca eggs (lesser whitethroat) eggs
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Jaqen (talk) on 2023-11-03 07:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Gianluca Gazzoli
Used in:
d:Q99347570, it:Gianluca Gazzoli
Reason:
Best in scope. -- Jaqen (talk)

 Best in Scope, useful and used --LexKurochkin (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-11-03 09:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Citroën Oli - left rear view
Used in:
de:Citroën Oli, fr:Citroën Oli
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-11-03 09:33 (UTC)
Scope:
Volvo EX30 - right rear view
Used in:
de:Volvo EX30, uk:Volvo EX30
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-11-03 09:35 (UTC)
Scope:
Fiat 600e - right rear view
Used in:
de:Fiat 600 (2023), en:Fiat 600 (2023), it:Fiat 600e
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2023-11-03 17:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Geolau - GMS (Péniche, 1939), bow view. Antoing (Be)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
— Rhododendrites talk |  on 2023-11-03 20:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Kinnie, glass bottle
Reason:
Too narrow? — Rhododendrites talk |  20:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC) -- — Rhododendrites talk | Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
— Rhododendrites talk |  on 2023-11-03 20:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Kinnie-based desserts
Reason:
Should this be something like "Food made with Kinnie" instead? — Rhododendrites talk |  20:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC) -- — Rhododendrites talk | Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
— Rhododendrites talk |  on 2023-11-03 20:58 (UTC)
Scope:
...
Reason:
Not used yet, but a likely notable restaurant. One of only two kosher restaurants in Florence, apparently. I was once of the impression that VIC is only for in-use photos, but have been told it's also for best-in-scope even if unused. Testing that, I guess. :) — Rhododendrites talk |  20:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC) -- — Rhododendrites talk | Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2023-11-03 23:16 (UTC)
Scope:
Cadensia (Cargo), port side and bow view. Antoing (Be)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lorax (talk) on 2023-11-04 01:24 (UTC)
Scope:
Damascus High School electronic sign and school
Reason:
A photo showing the sign for the school with the main entrance to the school in the background -- Lorax (talk)
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lorax (talk) on 2023-11-04 01:55 (UTC)
Scope:
Rio Rancho, New Mexico welcome sign

 Support Best in scope and useful. --Tagooty (talk) 03:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-04 05:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Dedale and Icarus by Antonio Canova at the Correr Museum

 Support Useful and used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 05:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-04 05:44 (UTC)
Scope:
Bust of Francesco Morosini the Peloponnesian, by Giovanni Comin, Museo Correr in Venice

 Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 06:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-04 05:46 (UTC)
Scope:
Interior with Piano by Pere Torné Esquius - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2023-11-04 06:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Jenneria pustulata (Jenner's Cowry), shell
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2023-11-04 10:19 (UTC)
Scope:
Sylvia curruca eggs (lesser whitethroat (curruca)) eggs
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2023-11-04 11:42 (UTC)
Scope:
Stormvogel (ship, 1980), front and starboard view. Antoing (Be)

 Question Do we consider starboard-view as a specified version? At least a better front view is this one.--Alexander-93 (talk) 20:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alexander-93: This is a proposal to have a starboard view of the geolocated Stormvogel (ship, 1980), in Antoing. Best regards--Pierre André (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-11-04 13:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Maxus T90 EV - right front view
Used in:
de:Maxus (Automarke)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-11-04 14:38 (UTC)
Scope:
Subaru Solterra ST-E - right front view
Used in:
de:Subaru Solterra
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Pierre André (talk) on 2023-11-04 17:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Centaurus - (ship, 1973), port side and stern view. Antoing (Be)
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Alexander-93 (talk) on 2023-11-04 20:07 (UTC)
Scope:
Opel Grandland GSe - left rear view
Used in:
de:Opel Grandland
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2023-11-05 05:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Bust of Nienke van Hichtum, sculptor Hans Jouta. Side view.
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-05 06:10 (UTC)
Scope:
Battle of Lepanto by Paolo Veronese - gallerie Accademia

 Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 06:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-05 06:14 (UTC)
Scope:
Architectural fantasy by Antonio Maria Visentini - Gallerie Accademia
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2023-11-05 06:16 (UTC)
Scope:
The Beggars Cathedral by Joaquim Mir - Museu Nacional d'Art de Catalunya
Open for review.

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Llez (talk) on 2023-11-05 06:28 (UTC)
Scope:
Macrogastra densestriata gredleri, shell
Open for review.

Review it! (edit)
Nominated by:
Ercé (talk) on 2023-11-05 08:21 (UTC)
Scope:
Sylvia ruppeli (museum specimens) (Rüppell's warbler) 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 08:27, 3 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 08:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Black-cowled oriole[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lycaon (talk) on 2010-05-08 10:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Icterus prosthemelas (Black-cowled Oriole)
Reason:
Only image on Commons and duly geo-referenced. -- Lycaon (talk)

 Support all criteria met --George Chernilevsky talk 14:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 10:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-04-12 17:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Icterus prosthemelas prosthemelas (Black-cowled oriole) showing back feathers

current VIC for image showing chest feathers

  •  Best in Scope, useful and used. Significantly better than the current VI as of 12.04.2023 --[[User:|LexKurhockin]] (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Significantly better than the current VI --Milseburg (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support agree with the others: better picture for this scope. -- Achim Raschka (talk) 13:09, 15 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Charles - suggest scope of this nomination match current VI with excess description "showing back feathers" dropped. --GRDN711 (talk) 01:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Charles – I did not see reference to another scope with chest species for this bird and you did not provide a link. Either way, it is not germane to the issue here. Requirements for Value Image scopes are defined in COM:VIS and those are the guidelines to that define the validity of VI scopes which are an essential part of the VI rating.
You have a good quality image that is of better quality than the one you are competing against in this MVR and would vote for it if the scopes were the same.
Why have you made your VI scope too narrow with the addition of "showing back feathers” as unnecessary description? If you think it is important detail, it should go in the image description.
Why are you comparing an image you have identified as sub-species to an image with a higher taxonomy level of species?
Per COM:VIS – “If several species are impossible to distinguish visually, then the scope should be at a higher taxonomy level.” --GRDN711 (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)--GRDN711 (talk) 21:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Charles While being calm is a welcome state of mind, clarity on your VI scope is needed here.
Are you stating that the yellow back feathers in this image support that this bird is of the Icterus prosthemelas prosthemelas sub-species as opposed to the I. p. praecox sub-species? Can you really compare it to the other MVR image VI with scope of Icterus prosthemelas species?
IMHO the extra description of feather coloration on chest or back is good information to support a VI nomination as I. p. prosthemelas sub-species (already has a VI), but it should not be part of the scope. --GRDN711 (talk) 23:21, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Info I do not see any problem with having rather detailed scopes for birds or any other subject. It is better than too general scope IMO. --LexKurochkin (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Hello LexKurochkin Overly detailed scopes tend to take the form of unique description that makes the image appear more valuable than it really is to Commons and can create multiple VI ratings for images of the same bird. Overly detailed scopes are specifically discouraged per COM:VIS.
“Note that scope is not a simple description of your image. Rather, it defines a generic field or category within which your image is the most valuable example.”
There is good reading in COM:VIS on too wide, too narrow (or overly descriptive), and just right scopes.
Further good reading is at COM:VIS Domain-specific scope guidelines for animals (includes birds) where the “General rule is: one scope per species…”. It goes on to allow identifiable sub-species and sub-scopes for identifiable male/female (fledgling, immature etc.) characteristics and specific behavioral aspects (nesting, flying etc.). All of these added sub-scope options are fine and in theory, it may be possible to have a dozen VI ratings for a given bird or animal.
IMHO when more description beyond these guidelines is allowed, the scope becomes too narrow and overly wordy. I have no problem with this extra information on chest and back feathers being presented as a reason to support the VI nomination (one on the non-mandatory fields in the nomination) for identification of this bird as representing a specific species or sub-species scope. --GRDN711 (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Violet patched skipper[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2019-06-16 19:29 (UTC)
Scope:
Monca crispinus (Violet-patched skipper) underside
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Fluffy89502 ~ talk^ 06:17, 20 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose leg and 1 antenna being out of focus is distracting. Lorax (talk) 02:27, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-04-23 14:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Monca crispinus (Violet-patched skipper) underside

 Support better lighting and better control of depth of field than alternative Lorax (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Support per Lorax. More details are visible at review size. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:27, 3 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 08:27, 3 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 08:27, 3 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 08:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Highland rubyspot[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lycaon (talk) on 2009-09-18 05:43 (UTC)
Scope:
Hetaerina cruentata, male

 Support All criteria for a VI --Cesco77 (talk) 09:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support - Only image of high quality displaying the Hetaerina cruentata. Tiptoety talk 21:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 2 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Yann (talk) 22:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-05-11 15:22 (UTC)
Scope:
Hetaerina cruentata (Highland rubyspot) male
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:27, 3 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 08:27, 3 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 08:27, 3 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 08:27, 3 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 08:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Anthony Albanese[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
99of9 (talk) on 2011-09-07 03:50 (UTC)
Scope:
Anthony Albanese
Used in:
w:Anthony Albanese
Reason:
There was only one other Commons pic of this Australian MP. In that one he wasn't dressed as a politician would usually dress. -- 99of9 (talk)

 Support All criteria met --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 16:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Poor lightening. --A1Cafel (talk) 07:28, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose per A1Cafel. The now-PM also looks very different to what he was 12 years ago. --SHB2000 (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment I don't think the fact that he looks different now is relevant to which photo is best in scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
A1Cafel (talk) on 2023-06-12 07:27 (UTC)
Scope:
Portrait of Anthony Albanese
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Russet-naped wood-rail[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Lycaon (talk) on 2009-09-07 07:49 (UTC)
Scope:
Aramides cajanea (Grey-necked Wood-rail)
Used in:
en:Grey-necked Wood-rail, es:Aramides cajanea, pt:Saracura-três-potes
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Lycaon (talk) 09:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-06-15 09:59 (UTC)
Scope:
Aramides albiventris (Russet-naped wood-rail)
  •  Support The difference between this and the other photo is night and day! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:33, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Question The scope is different. Is it possible to compare the images with the same scope? --LexKurochkin (talk) 09:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment You're right. I didn't read the scopes carefully enough. I will await a reply from Charlesjsharp before deciding whether I need to cross out my votes. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Ikan Kekek and LexKurochkin: Sorry, I hadn't noticed that the other image was misidentified when put up for VI for a different species. But it shows as a VI of Aramides albiventris so I think the best solution is to deselect as VI as I had proposed. Charlesjsharp (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •  Support I think it is an obvious mistake and deselecting the other image from VI would be acceptable solution. By the way, are there any procedure to edit VI scope in case of error?
    LexKurochkin (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Common ringed plover[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Ken Billington (talk) on 2010-12-25 21:48 (UTC)
Scope:
Charadrius hiaticula Ringed Plover
Reason:
There are no high-resolution images on the main Wikipedia page -- Ken Billington (talk)

 Oppose 1) Look at the change in the syntax of scope. 2) File: Ringed Plover (Charadrius hiaticula) (11). JPG is better because I can see a leg.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done thanks for the suggestion, image has been changed to the one showing a leg. --Ken Billington (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. George Chernilevsky talk 20:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-07-16 21:15 (UTC)
Scope:
Charadrius hiaticula (Common ringed plover)
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Maison de la Tourelle, Le Mans[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2023-06-28 18:54 (UTC)
Scope:
Maison de la Tourelle, Le Mans
Result: 1 support, 1 oppose =>
undecided. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Sebring12Hrs (talk) on 2023-07-08 21:12 (UTC)
Scope:
Maison de la Tourelle, Le Mans
  •  Support Better, because no distracting car and the right side of the building is visible. --Palauenc05 (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support More details are readily seen at review size in this photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Glassy-winged skipper[edit]

   

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charles (talk) on 2019-06-09 11:25 (UTC)
Scope:
Xenophanes tryxus (Glassy-winged skipper) dorsal
Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Oppose Wings damaged and white flower is a bit disturbing. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Review Page (edit)
Nominated by:
Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2023-10-24 10:36 (UTC)
Scope:
Xenophanes tryxus (Glassy-winged skipper) dorsal

 Support Best in scope. Wings aren't damaged here. --Sebring12Hrs (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 08:27, 3 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 08:27, 3 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.
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"