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

48,731 closed valued image candidates
Closed as				Nominations
Promoted			43,584 (89.4%)
Undecided			2,764 (5.7%)
Declined			2,383 (4.9%)

New valued image nominations

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: A1Cafel (talk) on 2022-07-18 06:36 (UTC) Scope: Mars by Rosetta  Question I'm curious about the scope "Atmosphere ...". The image appears to show mostly surface features. A scope such as "??? hemisphere view of Mars" may be more appropriate? --Tagooty (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2022 (UTC) @Tagooty: I'm not anb experrt in astronomy. Do you think "Global views of Mars" is more appropriate? --A1Cafel (talk) 02:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)  Comment For the current scope there is a much more suitable image in the category. Here would agree to a broader scope. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:08, 20 July 2022 (UTC)  Comment I am also not an expert on Mars. Scope "Full globe view of Mars"? Note that CAT:Mars (planet) has many such views, some synthetic some photographic. --Tagooty (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)  Question Why wouldn't the scope simply be Mars? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)  Info CAT:Mars (planet) has ~950 images and 100s of sub-CATs containing 1,000s of images. They depict many different aspects of Mars. A more specific scope is needed. --Tagooty (talk) 01:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)  Comment It's a shame not to promote this image. In the near future we will have many photographs of Mars; but this one can claim a historical character: it is the first which has a quality colorimetry. I suggest a scope such as Mars by Roseta. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:55, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Rosetta, and I think you're right. The huge new telescope is going to produce some amazing images of Mars. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Agreed! A scope such as "Mars by Rosetta: true colour full globe view" captures the historic value, and differentiates from many other types of images by Rosetta in Commons. --Tagooty (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Scope changed from Atmosphere of Mars to Mars by Rosetta --A1Cafel (talk) 03:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".  Support Ok for me --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 09:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2022-07-18 19:09 (UTC) Scope: Unio pictorum (Painter's Mussel), brown form, left valve  Support. Useful and used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View promotion Nominated by: Lorax (talk) on 2022-07-18 23:40 (UTC) Scope: Eaton Hollow Overlook looking west (Shenandoah National Park, VA)  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: — Rhododendrites talk |  on 2022-07-19 01:06 (UTC) Scope: All Saints Way in Boston  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View promotion Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2022-07-19 04:29 (UTC) Scope: railway station Groningen Detail of the upper part of the main building. Ornaments (North north west side.)  Support. Useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 07:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-19 05:10 (UTC) Scope: Phryxus caicus specimen - female ventral  Support Best in scope and used. --Tagooty (talk) 13:21, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
View promotion Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-19 05:11 (UTC) Scope: Vue du château du duc d'Aiguillon à Veretz - Henri Joseph van Blarenberghe - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)	View promotion Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-19 05:13 (UTC) Scope: Eve et Adam chassés du Paradis (Eve and Adam expelled from Paradise) - Jean-Baptiste Cariven - Musée des Beaux-Arts de Gaillac  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)  Comment Please name the painter in the scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)  Done thanks...--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Thank you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Voting is closed. Await automatic removal by VICBot2 at 00:18 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2022-07-19 07:42 (UTC) Scope: Kapelle Am Guten Mann (Mülheim-Kärlich), built in 1838, view from northwest  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 10:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 09:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2022-07-19 08:25 (UTC) Scope: Nave of church "St. Johannes Apostel" in Dernau, Germany.  Best in Scope, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 10:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 09:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2022-07-19 10:34 (UTC) Scope: V8 engine of a 1971 Buick Riviera  Support. Useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Gildir (talk) on 2022-07-19 08:52 (UTC) Scope: Jonny Kim Used in: Jonny Kim, fa:جانی کیم, fr:Jonny Kim, id:Jonny Kim, it:Distintivo di astronauta degli Stati Uniti, pt:Grupo 22 de Astronautas da NASA, pt:Jonny Kim, zh-yue:喬納森·金,  Best in Scope -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed as Promoted if the last vote was added no later than 09:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2022-07-19 12:00 (UTC) Scope: Engine of MG B Roadster from 1979, right side  Support. Useful and used.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Tagooty (talk) on 2022-07-19 13:17 (UTC) Scope: Ahmedabad University, University Centre building, view from south-east Used in: en:Ahmedabad University • wikidata:Q113149048 Can you correct the perspective? -- Spurzem (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)  Done @Spurzem: Thanks for the review, please see the new version. --Tagooty (talk) 15:24, 19 July 2022 (UTC)  Support. Good now! Useful and used image -- Spurzem (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2022 (UTC)  Info @Spurzem: I've uploaded a new version with more space at the bottom, for a better composition. Perspective remains corrected. I hope this one meets your approval. --Tagooty (talk) 08:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Gzen92 [discuter] on 2022-07-19 14:46 (UTC) Scope: Chapelle Saint-Florent (Xonrupt-Longemer)  Support. Useful and used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Lorax (talk) on 2022-07-20 02:19 (UTC) Scope: High Point High School, Beltsville, MD Reason: Good picture showing both the school and the sign with the school name clearly legible even at small sizes -- Lorax (talk)  Best in Scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2022-07-20 04:36 (UTC) Scope: Bronze liberation plaque on the facade of the city hall in Groningen. Work by Willem Johannes Valk  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-20 04:53 (UTC) Scope: Vue des bords de la Méditerranée (drapeau blanc) (View of the shores of the Mediterranean (white flag)) - Pierre-Jacques Volaire - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen  Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)  Question Can we use square brackets for parentheses within parentheses? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:18, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Square brackets are recognized as a programming language and I'm afraid that will disturb the BOT. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-20 04:55 (UTC) Scope: Saint-Caprais Cathedral - The choir ceiling - Agen, Lot-et-Garonne, France.  Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:25, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-20 04:58 (UTC) Scope: Jules Pendariès in 1889 by Joseph Amouroux - Musée des Beaux-Arts de Gaillac  Support Useful & used.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2022-07-20 05:54 (UTC) Scope: Mytilus edulis (Blue mussel), right valve  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Charlesjsharp (talk) on 2022-07-20 17:12 (UTC) Scope: Pontia edusa (Eastern bath white) underside  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2022-07-20 17:06 (UTC) Scope: Engine of 1968th BMW R 69 S with velocity stack carburetor tuned for racing, right side  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2022-07-20 17:17 (UTC) Scope: Standard engine of BMW R 69 S, built in 1963, left side  Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: H2O(talk) on 2022-07-20 19:21 (UTC) Scope: Maison Dolpire  Question In France there will be a copyright on the architect, is it the same in Belgium? --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2022 (UTC) @Archaeodontosaurus: In France there is no freedom of panorama, in Belgium yes. I added the FoP headband to the file, so there is no hesitation about this freedom. --H2O(talk) 05:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)  Support Perfect (Vous avez bien de la chance en Belgique) --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:58, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2022-07-21 04:28 (UTC) Scope: Synagogue, Groningen Ornament above the entrance.  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-21 04:48 (UTC) Scope: Enyo cavifer specimen - male dorsal  Support Best in scope and used --Llez (talk) 05:22, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-21 04:50 (UTC) Scope: Emmanuel-Amand de Vignerot du Plessis-Richelieu, duc d'Aiguillon - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen  Support Useful & used.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-21 04:51 (UTC) Scope: Église Saint-Michel de Gaillac - Apse seen from Place Maurice and Eugénie de Guérin  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2022-07-21 05:20 (UTC) Scope: Mytilus edulis (Blue mussel), left valve  Support Useful & used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: H2O(talk) on 2022-07-21 07:38 (UTC) Scope: Le Centurion (Vevey)  Best in Scope, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk on 2022-07-21 09:50 (UTC) Scope: Visual arts. Category:Steampunk. Category:Dieselpunk. Category:Mechas. Reason: The artist donated (released under open licence) this cool image, which is used to illustrate several articles. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk  Comment Can you please have a close look at how other works of art are nominated here. It's quite a specific format and not easy to get right. You need to specify the name of the painting and the artist in the scope. Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: H2O(talk) on 2022-07-21 12:24 (UTC) Scope: Château-ferme de la Torre (Mont-sur-Marchienne) West tower  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 04:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2022-07-21 14:42 (UTC) Scope: Detail „Bauer mit Pflug“ of the Historienstein in Kärlich, 1985 by Paul Milles  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Palauenc05 (talk) on 2022-07-21 16:57 (UTC) Scope: Front / side view of a 1983 Lamborghini Countach LP500S. Reason: The only in scope without distracting surroundings -- Palauenc05 (talk)  Best in Scope, useful and used -- Spurzem (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)  Question Typo in the file name? Charlesjsharp (talk) 17:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)  Comment I've added the official info sign to the file description. --Palauenc05 (talk) 08:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: GRDN711 (talk) on 2022-07-21 19:29 (UTC) Scope: Greenlandic fishing trawler, GR 2-122 Bingo III Reason: Best image of this ship by name. -- GRDN711 (talk)  Best in Scope--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Lorax (talk) on 2022-07-22 01:24 (UTC) Scope: Riprap Overlook view, Shenandoah National Park  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2022-07-22 04:33 (UTC) Scope: Provincial House (Groningen) Supporting structure of the bay window.  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-22 04:51 (UTC) Scope: La Visite de la forge (Visit of the forge) - Louis-Bernard Coclers - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen  Support Useful and used --Llez (talk) 05:47, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-22 04:55 (UTC) Scope: Joseph Latour - Jeune paysan espagnol en costume (Young Spanish peasant in costume) - Musée des Beaux-Arts de Gaillac  Support Useful & Used.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:23, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2022-07-22 05:45 (UTC) Scope: Joculator arduinii, shell  Support Useful. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: IamMM (talk) on 2022-07-22 11:48 (UTC) Scope: Apollo Lunar Mapping Camera System  Comment  Must connect the scope to the category or gallery that contains the image  --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Done. -- IamMM (talk) 05:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Pierre André (talk) on 2022-07-22 15:47 (UTC) Scope: Blockhaus B07 (Bray-Dunes), view from north-west Used in: Bray-Dunes  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2022-07-22 16:41 (UTC) Scope: Cultural heritage monuments in Moselkern: basalt cross from 1766 with sculptures of Jesus and Our Lady of the Seven Sorrows  Best in Scope--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 04:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: A1Cafel (talk) on 2022-07-23 03:36 (UTC) Scope: Global cumulative tropical cyclone tracks  Support Useful & Used --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) on 2022-07-23 04:35 (UTC) Scope: Provincial House (Groningen) Entrance of the porter's house.  Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-23 04:41 (UTC) Scope: Nature morte avec deux oiseaux morts, une souris et trois insectes (Still life with two dead birds, a mouse and three insects) - Jean-Baptiste Oudry - Musée des Beaux-Arts d'Agen  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-23 04:42 (UTC) Scope: Jean Damaze Facieu - Portrait de Placide de Cousin - Musée des Beaux-Arts de Gaillac  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Archaeodontosaurus (talk) on 2022-07-23 04:53 (UTC) Scope: Saint-Caprais Cathedral - Statue of Saint Stephen 1844 by Louis Rochet  Best in Scope --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:11, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review.	Review it! (edit) Nominated by: Spurzem (talk) on 2022-07-23 09:25 (UTC) Scope: Cultural heritage monuments in Moselkern: door next to the church covered with copper plates by Adolf Steines 1969 Open for review.

Pending Most valued review candidates

Bittium glareosum, shell

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2014-09-04 05:42 (UTC) Scope: Bittium glareosum, Shell  Best in Scope --LivioAndronico talk 08:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 0 oppose => promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)  Oppose Generally less detailed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 09:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Llez (talk) on 2022-06-05 07:47 (UTC) Scope: Bittium glareosum, shell Reason: This is a much better preserved specimen --Llez (talk) 07:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC) -- Llez (talk)  Support More details. But do the differences in color reflect differences in subspecies? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)  Info There are no accepted subspecies (see [1]) --Llez (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC) Thanks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:53, 7 June 2022 (UTC)  Support per nom. --Palauenc05 (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)  Question I don't understand the colour difference. Charlesjsharp (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)  Info There are many species with variable colour and/or pattern, see for example here, here, here, here, here (in the latter example not only the same species but the same population, collected in an area of a few square meters), and many more. --Llez (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 09:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Porta Nigra

Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Berthold Werner (talk) on 2022-06-15 02:40 (UTC) Scope: Porta Nigra Used in: de:Porta Nigra, en:Porta Nigra, fr:Porta Nigra ...  Question Is there any reason why this image is more valuable for illustrating the subject than, say, Image:Trier, Porta Nigra cityside.jpg? I'm not trying to be facetious--I'm simply wondering if there's a particular reason why an image of the north side is more valuable than one of the south. --jonny-mt 13:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC) First of all I didn't think to select a own valued image for each side. Perhaps you're right. But the north side is the side the romans build to impress the Germanic tribes so it's a kind of "main side" and more impressing. Most pictures in books and postcards show the north side. But as a "UNESCO World Heritage Site" the Porta Nigra may got a valued image for each side. --Berthold Werner (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC) Have you considered doing a series, then? I like this shot and agree that it's valuable, but since I'm having a hard time gauging its value relative to other similar pictures on Commons I'm  Neutral for the time being. I'd certainly be willing to support a series showing various angles of this World Heritage Site, though. --jonny-mt 15:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)  Support I agree with the nominator that this side of the structure is the most relevant, and I find the scope relevant as a stand-alone image. There are other photos on Commons taken from this side, but I think the lightning conditions on this candidate is better than on competing images and the crop is good. Other criteria check out for me too, so its a support from my side. Concerning a set nomination, I have my reservations unless it is taken as a series on the same day, at the same distance, such that it constitutes a coherent set. Difficult however, as the lightning conditions will never be good at all sides at the same time of day. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC) Result: 1 support, 1 neutral => Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)  Oppose per comments on the other photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 09:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Wolf im Wald on 2022-06-15 02:40 (UTC) Scope: Porta Nigra Reason: good perspective and very high sharpness IMO -- Wolf im Wald  super! --Palauenc05 (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)  Oppose There is already an existing VI for this scope of the Porta Nigra. This nomination should be withdrawn and re-nominated in MVR if the nominator wishes to contest the existing VI. --GRDN711 (talk) 00:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)  Info Restarted the nomination because of existing VI. Please vote below. -- Wolf im Wald 02:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)  Support I prefer this one, because there are no cars in the foreground. --Palauenc05 (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)  Support Agree with Palauenc05. Without cars in the foreground makes this image more valuable. --GRDN711 (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)  Support It also lacks competition from the clouds. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)  Support IMHO an exemplary hi-res image, certainly a VI. Congrats: 44 images ... and, as yet, I haven't detected a single stitching error, even in the multitude of leaves at right. Which software do you use? Tremendous detail - every single chisel mark visible. Quite often hi-res images with low contrast do not readily appeal to the eye when rendered at lo-res, say a few hundred pixels each edge, but this image sports enough colour and contrast to please at any resolution. -- Franz van Duns (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2022 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 09:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

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 09:28, 21 July 2022 (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 [2]). -- 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 09:28, 21 July 2022 (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 (UTC) Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 09:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Q28 (talk) on 2022-07-07 00:59 (UTC) Scope: Horses of the Basque Country Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 09:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Q28 (talk) on 2022-07-07 01:07 (UTC) Scope: Horses of the Basque Country Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 09:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)	Review Page (edit) Nominated by: Q28 (talk) on 2022-07-07 00:59 (UTC) Scope: Horses of the Basque Country Previous reviews Open for review. May be closed if the last vote was added no later than 09:28, 21 July 2022 (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.